Apparently the Trump Administration has been discussing sending sanctuary seeking oppressed persons of foreign citizenship who cross our borders irregularly to those cities in the United States which have declared they will defy Federal Law in order to provide succor to such unfortunates.

My question is, why didn’t the Sanctuary Cities demand this long ago?

Instead, they are complaining such action by the Feds would be “spreading pestilence,” and “Using human beings — including little children — as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants…”

Wouldn’t it be most humane to send “The wretched refuse,” (quoting Emma Lazarus, as Democrats have lately done) to the place they would receive the warmest welcome?

Germ theory denialism

99% of the anti-vaxxers in and near Portland, Oregon will call you a “science denier” if you suggest CAGW is debatable in any way. Simultaneously, they choose to risk the death of their children from measles.  Never mind the danger to others of providing many more disease vectors.

State of emergency declared in US measles outbreak

This is a serious disease we had eliminated in the United States 20 years ago, until these morons decided to believe the germ theory of disease didn’t apply to them; while inviting thousands of poor people from third-world countries to live among them without medical exams.

Apparently, there’s no victim-identity group for “children who haven’t had measles vaccinations.” Odd, since there is one for “sex-transitioning 10 year olds.”

Perhaps the fact that measles is a very serious disease when contracted by an adult male contributes to the disdain for vaccination among these Rousseauian wannabes.

That could have gone better

Predictably, Trump supporters are praising the President’s executive order on immigration despite its flaws. Even more predictably, his detractors are invoking their Hitler analogies and ignoring the fact that the countries targeted come from a list developed by the Obama administration, who actually did use it to discriminate – against Christians.

If the Left wants ever more of this sort of thing, they should keep ramping up their hysterical whining.

Yes, the EO was not very well thought out since it stopped green card holders from entering the United States. They’ve already been subjected to sufficiently extreme vetting that holding them overnight isn’t going to help fight terrorism. They spent months or years waiting to become legal immigrants. The Administration belatedly recognized this and reversed itself. An unforced error.

It’s merely the most recent example of Trump’s idea that he knows more about everything than anybody. I.e., he’s not Hitler, he’s simply impulsive and ignorant in the manner of big government authoritarians like Barack Obama and every Democrat in Congress, if more crude.

Immigration Policy is national security

The Weekly Standard notes that

Marco Rubio, the Florida senator who is running for president, was among those who voted against the USA Freedom Act. “Just four days before the terrorist attack in California this week, the USA Freedom Act limited our access to critical information about potential threats,” said Rubio’s campaign in a statement provided to THE WEEKLY STANDARD. “Because too many in Washington have failed to grasp the nature of this enemy, we have less access to intelligence information now than we did just days ago. In the wake of Wednesday’s attack on innocent Americans doing nothing more than going about their daily lives, we must act swiftly to reverse the limitations imposed on these critical intelligence programs. Radical jihadists are trying to kill as many Americans as they can. Our law enforcement and intelligence professionals need access to this information. Failing to give them the tools they need to keep Americans safe is dangerous and irresponsible.”

It’s just a bit odd to connect an attack your policy didn’t detect with the efficacy of that policy in preventing such an attack.

Rubio is better spoken than Josh Earnest, but the Senator sounds just like the Press Secretary when the latter was asked for an example of a mass shooting “more gun control” would have prevented.

Our law enforcement and intelligence professionals had the authority Senator Rubio is complaining they lost before the San Bernadino attack. Were they not using it, was it overwhelmingly vast or just useless? Or all three?

Of course, there was intelligence which could have stopped the attack, but law enforcement and intelligence professionals were prevented from using it by the Obama Administration’s exquisite tribalist sensitivities, not by Senators who voted in favor of the Fourth Amendment.

The male shooter in San Bernadino was aligned with a Mosque known to promote radical Islam, but an investigation that would have raised that flag was shut down by Homeland Security on the request of the State Department’s Office of Civil Rights. Killing this investigation can only be viewed as a public relations exercise in political correctness. No profiling!

The female shooter had publicly indicated she supported ISIS long before she was Federally “vetted” on three separate occasions. Federal policy prevented a search of her Facebook account that would have revealed this. On the admittedly flimsy assumption that support for ISIS is disqualifying, she would have been denied the opportunity to shoot anyone in San Bernadino.

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end the secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, according to a former senior department official.

“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

Since multiple sources for determinative information which would have put these two under surveillance was ignored – because the approbation of the American elite left was more important to the Obama Administration than protecting Americans – we’re supposed to bend the Fourth Amendment to Senator Rubio’s will? Over an incident where the program he’s pushing failed?

Senator Rubio, if he wants to prevent future terror attacks, might consider directing his fire at the people who failed us with their PC attitude to vetting immigrants. Of course, Rubio has demonstrated he shares a bit of that attitude. He seems not to realize that Immigration Policy is the intersection of Foreign Policy with Domestic Policy. Rubio advances the surveillance state in order to maintain the illusion the two sets of policy are unrelated.

His complaint about the USA Freedom Act boils down to this: We need this intrusion into your life to keep you safe from our incompetence in using the obvious intelligence sources we already have.

Related: Quite a long article, but with a good bit of explanatory power about Cruz and Rubio on foreign and immigration policy. And why they’re attacking each other in precisely the way they are. This addresses some very substantive issues.

YMMV, but I do recommend it. It may assist you in a choice we’ll face if we can ever get rid of the blowhard rug-head.

And let’s finish by examining the Weekly Standard’s intro to the piece in the first link:

Thanks to a law recently passed by Congress and signed into law, federal law enforcement are unable to access phone records of the terrorists who killed or injured dozens of people in San Bernardino this week.

Wrong. All that’s necessary is a subpoena to get the needed records. I’m sure they got one almost instantly. I call Marco Rubio shilling on the Standard.

HSA distracted by terabytes of phone meta-data

U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media

Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.

American law enforcement officials said they recently discovered those old — and previously unreported — postings as they pieced together the lives of Ms. Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, trying to understand how they pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001.

Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.

The 34% solution

The border with Mexico is 1,900 miles long. About 650 miles of it are fenced against illegal immigrants. Our President calls the fence “basically complete.”

It follows, then, that our President defines “basically complete” as 34% complete. Or perhaps less. I’m sure 32% would qualify. Maybe even 25%.

In fact, it doesn’t matter to the President whether we have control of our southern border. The GAO says we only have effective control of 50% of it. At what point does sovereignty becomes suspect? According to the President, effective control would be somewhere in the low 30% range.

Perhaps our President meant “complete” in the sense of “over, done with, terminated, stick a tenedor in it.” Or maybe it’s just affirmative action for fencing material.

USA Today to the rescue of Soros and Bloomberg?

Senaturkeys think they’ve got problems with talk radio? Apparently, they forgot the Internet.

Trent Lott Sells Out

You’ll find more examples of ads that any Senator who votes for the Amnesty Bill will face, and not just on the ‘net, here. Thanks to Mickey Kaus for encouraging creation of the examples, and to yesterday’s SCOTUS decision for opening the possibility. H/T Instapundit

Rounding out today’s free speech news are three more items:

Liberals vs. Free Speech
by Jack Kelly notes what Liberals consider the “fairness doctrine” to mean:

PBS is the beau ideal of many liberals when it comes to free speech. Their point of view is subsidized by the taxpayers. Other points of view are suppressed.

The Rocky Mountain News weighs in with: Free speech sanity

…”Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,” he [Chief Justice Roberts] wrote. “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the ruling “regrettable,” but crowed that it left in place the “central reform” of the law that carries his name, the limits on how and from whom campaign funds can be raised.

No, senator, what is truly regrettable is that President Bush did not veto this misguided legislation when Congress passed it in 2002. Even though the president believed the law was unconstitutional, he signed it, gambling that the Supreme Court would do for him what he lacked the political will to do for himself.

I suggest Justice Roberts meant “especially” rather than “simply,” and I would correct “political will” to “principle.”

Predictably, USA Today weighs in against anybody’s free speech, except that protected by the “press exemption:” Our view on boundaries of free speech: High Court opens door for wealthy interest groups

Obviously, USA Today isn’t cognizant of billionaire currency speculator George Soros, and failed to note Michael Bloomberg’s purchase of the New York City Mayoralty. Otherwise, they could not have written this:

…[The decision] rips a hole in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which since 2002 has been the primary vehicle for limiting the corrupting influence of special-interest money.

…Rather than try to plug the leaks in McCain-Feingold, Congress would be wise to consider a different approach, one that has withstood court challenges and is taking hold in seven states and two cities: voluntary public financing of campaigns. Candidates get public money to wage campaigns in exchange for agreeing not to accept large donations from special interests.

USA Today is just being Liberally obtuse here. It is, after all, their mission. Public financing is the raison d’etre of principleless political hacks like billionaire Michael Bloomberg, It lets their “corrupting influence” run amok when they opt out of PBS-style campaign finance.

Vast bi-partisan conspiracy

When Trent Lott joins forces with Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer, you know there’s a serious problem, and it isn’t deciding what to wear to Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party.

You can be pretty certain that the common motivation is to protect Senatorial hegemony, reinforced by shared impatience with Constitutional guarantees. The problem they’ve identified is talk radio. For heaven’s sake, “Talk Shows Influence Immigration Debate,” and we can’t have that:

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters last week, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.” Some hosts, he added, do not know what is in the lengthy bill.

Neither do some Senators, so what’s your point Trent? That some hosts (by your definition) DO know what’s in the bill? I can see where that would be a problem. You don’t think we should know about earmarks, why should we get uncontrolled information about any legislation?

Senator Clinton and Senator Boxer agree we need a “legislative fix” for talk radio. They should have an easy time drafting the legislation; they can just take a cue from Hugo Chavez. For talking points the Senate debate they can lift language from the George Soros funded far-left Center for American Progress:

Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting from pro-forma licensing policies, longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously), the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management. [Footnote references deleted.]

It’s a regulation problem, you see, that kept Soros funded Air America’s ratings below those of Congress. What goes unacknowledged is that the market for Air America is, perhaps, overserved. Lott, Clinton and Boxer would apparently be happier if all radio were National Public Radio, all the time. Then they could threaten withdrawal of funding. On the other hand, since there’s already a government radio station, it’s not like you have to listen to Rush for information about the Amnesty Bill.

In keeping with the spirit of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, we obviously need further action to protect our elected officials from the slings and arrows of informed public opinion. How can these public servants be expected to ram secretly negotiated, thousand page bills through both Houses of Congress in 10 days, if there’s market driven discussion about the content? We should be content to take them at their word: They’re looking after our best interests.

However, it does occur to me that since they’d be taking just as much heat from the left (Labor Unions don’t like the Amnesty Bill either), Lott, Clinton, and Boxer have picked a particularly bad example about which get their panties knotted. If there was more left-wing talk radio, they’d still be under withering fire. That wouldn’t much affect their contempt for free speech. It’s only if there was less talk about the Amnesty Bill – period – that they’d be happy.

The Z-1 Bomb Project

Mark Steyn writes about our elected representatives’ efforts to build a cultural-Balkanization-of-America accelerator, while they simultaneously explode the myth of border security.

…As for the notion that dumping a population the size of four mid-size European Union nations into the lap of America’s arthritic “legal immigration” (please, no tittering; apparently, there is still such a thing) bureaucracy will lead to tougher enforcement and rigorous scrutiny and lots of other butch-sounding stuff, well, if that were the case, there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. You can declare that “illegal” now mean “legal” very easily; to mandate that “incompetent” now means “competent” is a tougher proposition.

Of course, John McCain is in the thick of it:

But, as John McCain declared, “This is what the legislative process is all about” — and in the sense that it’s a sloppily drafted bottomless pit of unintended consequences on a potentially cosmic scale whose sweeping “reforms” will inevitably require even more sweeping reforms of the reforms in a year or two’s time, he’s quite right. Also, as Senator McCain says, “This is what bipartisanship is all about.”

What “bipartisanship” means here is that when George Bush signs this ill-begotten amnesty the Democrats will be able to blame it on Republicans while demanding voting rights for non-citizens. The GOP will richly deserve the consequences.

Read it all here.