PowerLine 💥 Trump’s Best Decision Yet – How Is Mass Islamic Immigration Working Out In Europe?
- Trump’s Best Decision Yet
- Perez defeats Ellison
- About that DHS “draft report”
- How Is Mass Islamic Immigration Working Out In Europe?
- Michael Moore is with you
|Trump’s Best Decision Yet
Posted: 25 Feb 2017 04:10 PM PST
Trump sent out this tweet earlier today:
The media will react badly to this—watch for this to be a major topic of conversation on the panel portions of the weekly TV news shows tomorrow morning—but with the media already in a stark raving mad rage about Trump, where can they go from here?
It’s about time a president declined to adorn this massive exercise in media self-absorption and self-congratulation. Fake news indeed. Without Trump, C-SPAN might not even cover it. Even if they get Alec Baldwin to take his place.
This one bears a reprise from this morning’s TWIP gallery:
|Perez defeats Ellison
Posted: 25 Feb 2017 01:14 PM PST
Democratic National Committee members meeting in Atlanta this afternoon elected former Obama administration Secretary Tom Perez their new chairman. Perez defeated Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison on the second ballot by a vote of 235-200. Ellison picked up no votes on the second ballot after Perez fell one short of winning outright the first time around. Jonathan Martin does a good job reporting the story for the Times here.
Perez promptly moved to name Ellison deputy chairman of the DNC. Ellison will accordingly retain his perch in Congress representing Minneapolis and its inner ring suburbs. The outcome leaves those of us who oppose Ellison up close in Minnesota with the worst of both worlds.
|About that DHS “draft report”
Posted: 25 Feb 2017 12:42 PM PST
The AP breathlessly reports that a “DHS report disputes threat from banned nations.” The headline is false. The document in question isn’t a DHS report; it’s a draft document (as the story acknowledges) that someone in DHS leaked to the AP.
The document in question is a three-pager that’s apparently based solely on open-source material. It may be something an anti-Trump bureaucrat threw together in order to embarrass the president and undermine the prospect of the administration’s revised travel ban surviving judicial review.
In any case, the draft report does not state the view of DHS. As a DHS spokeswoman said, the document isn’t based on a final comprehensive review of the government’s intelligence. It hasn’t undergone and survived the process required to become the DHS’s view.
Nor is it easy to see how the document could. It is based on the background of the 82 people the government believes were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to engage in s terrorist act in the United States since March 2011. A little more than half of them were U.S. citizens born in the United States. Of the remainder, not many came from the seven countries listed in the ban, and none came from Syria.
Notice first, that the draft report is based on a review of only about 40 terrorists. I doubt that this is a sufficient sample from which to draw conclusions.
That seems particularly true when it comes to Syria. Until recently, was there a large influx of dispossessed Syrians into this country? If not, then the fact that no Syrian was involved in a terrorist plot during the six-year period studied says little or nothing about the likelihood that Syrians entering the U.S. henceforward will become involved.
But even if nothing had changed in Syria or anywhere else, the sample size still would be too small, it seems to me.
It may also be a mistake to exclude U.S. citizens born in the United States whose parents immigrated to the U.S. In countries like France and Belgium, citizens of those countries who were born there to Arab parents frequently are radicalized by jihadists and terrorist organizations. We’ve seen some of that in this country too.
Again, though, even if the sample of terrorist plotters were raised to 82, I doubt it would be sufficient to draw any conclusions.
It’s not even clear that the focus should be on what has happened to date, no matter how large the sample. We’re concerned about how immigrants will behave going forward, based on the situation that prevails currently and is likely to prevail in the coming years.
As I suggested, the behavior of people who came here from Syria ten years ago, when it was a stable nation and ISIS did not exist, is probably not indicative of how new refugees from Syria will behave here now. The behavior of people who left Iran when the Shah fell and in the first decade of the mullahs’ rule may not be much of a guide as to how people who come here now from Iran will act.
It is certainly defensible, and probably better, to predict immigrant behavior by analyzing the current situation in troubled countries. Is the nation stable or wore torn? Are jihadists present in large numbers? How much terrorism exists? Is the government one with which we can partner in vetting potential immigrants?
There’s a good case that the seven nations on the Trump administration’s list — Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Syria — all belong there based on the answers to the questions asked above. Most of them are extremely unstable and/or wore torn. Most, if not all, contain many jihadists and/or have experienced plenty of terrorism. Maybe only Iraq has a government we can hope effectively to partner with; maybe none has such a government.
Thus, it is rational, and probably astute, to list these seven countries.
The DHS draft report asserts, however, that terror groups in Iran, Sudan, and Yemen are regionally focused, rather than focused on terrorizing the United States. But the same thing was thought to be true of al Qaeda before 9/11. And even if the DHS bureaucrat is right about the current focus of the terror groups in Iran, Sudan, and Yemen, that focus could change on a dime.
Consider Iran. The mullahs had little reason to have their terrorists focus on the U.S. during the Obama years when they were negotiating for the lifting of sanctions. Their calculus could change in the Trump years if the president takes a hard line on Iran. It could also change as the situation in Syria and Iraq become more favorable to Tehran
In sum, the draft three-page report looks like partisan nonsense. A less partisan, more through, and more logical analysis would likely support the administration’s position.
In this connection, a White House spokesman told AP he believes “the intel community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources, not just open sources, and which is driven by data, not politics.” Let’s hope so.
NOTE: I have modified this post slightly since it first appeared on Power Line.
|How Is Mass Islamic Immigration Working Out In Europe?
Posted: 25 Feb 2017 07:39 AM PST
Poorly, to put it briefly. This is why immigration-skeptic parties have cropped up and prospered across the continent. Why is it that so many Europeans think mass Islamic immigration is a bad idea? Incidents like this one in Paris:
Just don’t tell the Parisian tourism board.
Here in the U.S., there is an upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents, including coordinated telephone threats against Jewish organizations and desecration of Jewish cemeteries. Liberals try to pretend that these incidents are perpetrated wholly or in part by Trump supporters, notwithstanding the fact that Trump’s own family is partly Jewish. (Logic has never been a liberal strong point.) I would gently suggest that the problem lies principally elsewhere and that Europe’s experience is instructive.
|Michael Moore is with you
Posted: 25 Feb 2017 05:37 AM PST
(Scott Johnson)We have carefully charted the support of fools and miscreants who have joined Power Line readers mischievously pulling for Keith Ellison to win his bid for election to the DNC chairmanship. Former Obama administration Secretary of Labor Tom Perez is Ellison’s chief competition. I think Perez has to be rated the favorite to prevail among the members of the DNC who meet today in Atlanta to elect their new leader.
The mainstream media have followed the race with great intensity. It’s a little hard to fathom until you pause to reflect. They have a deep professional interest in the selection of their new leader.
On Ellison’s home front, Star Tribune Washington reporter Allison Sherry has served as a sort of cheerleader for Ellison. The Star Tribune has once again passed over the opportunity to take a serious look at Ellison’s outré past or his boredom representing the district that includes the Star Tribune.
This time around the Star Tribune has left it to Mother Jones to dig into Ellison’s long, long association with the hate cult known as the Nation of Islam. It’s an interesting story that I’ve been telling now for more than ten years, on Power Line and in the Weekly Standard and even in the Star Tribune (thanks to commentary editor Doug Tice).
In her preview of this week’s voting Sherry refers to “new questions about [Ellison’s] past connections to the Nation of Islam[.]” If you get your news from the Star Tribune, however, you will have missed the “new questions.”
Sherry notes that the Nation of Islam “has been subject to accusations of anti-Semitism.” You don’t say. Maybe it’s for the best that Sherry hasn’t gotten around to exploring the “new questions about Ellison’s past connections[.]” She lacks the necessities to sort them out.
Ellison represents the Sanders/Warren wing of the party, Perez the current Democratic establishment. I don’t think there’s a dime’s worth of difference between them. They both represent the identity politics on which the Democrats have staked their future.
Ellison also embodies the Democrats’ alliance with Islamist forces. He is an exceedingly unsavory character. He is, so to speak, a bad dude. If he were to win the contest in the voting today Ellison would resign his congressional seat, but it would be foolish for Minnesotans to take comfort in that. He would only open the seat for another left-wing lunatic from Minneapolis.
Late this week Michael Moore announced his support for Ellison. “We need Keith Ellison as the DNC chair,” according to Moore. Moore, however, is apparently unfamiliar either with Ellison or with Minnesota. “Before he was a congressman in Minnesota,” Moore asserted, “he helped turn Minnesota from what was then a red state into a blue state.”
So Michael Moore doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Civil rights hero John Lewis has also endorsed Ellison (video below). Ellison, according to Lewis, was “born to organize.” There is some truth to that depending, as Bill Clinton might say, on what you mean by “organize.”
Lewis tries to work up a head of steam making the case for Ellison, but the numerous edits in the video make a statement of their own. Quotable quote: “He is the man for the season.” You mean he’s not a man for all seasons?
Soon it will all be over but the crying and the lying.