CauseACTION Logo

Stop partisan corpse abuse

Stop partisan corpse abuse
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2018

Impolite question, but it needs to be asked: Is there a Republican dead body that left-wing partisans won’t use to bash Donald Trump?

This week’s partisan corpse abusers callously exploited the passing of George H.W. Bush, America’s 41st president, to get in their digs at the current commander in chief. Their vulgar level of incivility was inversely propositional to their sanctimonious calls for decency.

“The View’s” Joy Behar rudely and crudely soiled the ABC show’s tribute to the 94-year-old World War II hero and lifelong public servant. While Whoopi Goldberg and other panelists paid homage to Bush’s character and love of family, Behar wielded an old Bush quote about federal Clean Air Act amendments to attack Trump on climate change. Her narcissistic pledge to become a “one-issue voter” on “pollution and the greenhouse effect” was interrupted when co-host Meghan McCain forcefully objected to the hijacking of their short-lived unity message.

Instead of apologizing for her ill-timed lapse into Trump Derangement Syndrome, Behar ripped into McCain while Goldberg cut to a commercial break. Not-so-joyful Joy reportedly shrieked in earshot of the audience: “Get this b—- under control” and told producers “If this s— doesn’t stop, I’m quitting this damn show. I can’t take this much more.”

Neither can my ears. Can’t we just all get along?

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski displayed a similar lack of restraint, extolling the Bush’s legacy of bipartisanship not for its own sake — but to carp about how “over the last two years deviancy has continued being defined down by this current president.”

The Washington Post’s lead article on Bush’s passing bemoaned: “‘Honorable, gracious and decent’: In Death, Bush Becomes a Yardstick for President Trump.” Yes, it’s a virtue-signaling yardstick to wallop Trump with in hopes of beating him into Beltway media submission.

Over at CNN, correspondent Jamie Gangel derided Trump’s somber visit to the U.S. Capitol to pay his respects as Bush 41’s casket arrived at the rotunda to lie in state. Gangel trashed Trump’s ceremonial salute to Bush as “theatrical” and rejected veteran Beltway commentator David Gergen’s assessment that Trump deserved credit for his decorum.

“I’m concerned that we shouldn’t give credit to someone for not kicking dirt on the grave of a person who just passed away,” said Jeffery Engel, rebuking Gergen during an interview with CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. (Yes, that’s the same Cooper who demonstrated his commitment to civil discourse by infamously mocking tea party conservatives by using a degrading slang term for an oral sex act — also in an interview with poor David Gergen.)

Let’s stop pretending and give the historical whitewash a rest. This isn’t about celebrating “civility.” It’s about weaponizing “civility.” The newfound fans of the Bush clan spent years demonizing them as bloodthirsty warmongers and dynastic oppressors. Bush the Younger was lambasted as a “chimp,” beheaded in protest posters, and assassinated in off-Broadway plays. When liberals now praise the Bushes’ “civility,” what they are actually rewarding is the GOP establishment’s capitulation to liberal principles of big government and elitist comity.

Because the Bush family refused to fight back vigorously against media smears, daily Hollywood abuse and partisan slime, they’re considered paragons of virtue from whom Trump is lectured to “learn.” According to swamp etiquette, it’s uncouth to call out profane, deranged haters who have no qualms about letting their anti-Trump freak flags fly as decent Americans mourn.

“Civility” is in the eye of the bemoaner.

***

In case you’re interested, my thoughts on the Bush legacy are here at Breitbart.

Posted in: Politics

Silicon Valley Sharia

Silicon Valley Sharia
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2018

This is a tale of two young, outspoken women in media.

One is a liberal tech writer. The other is an enterprising conservative new media reporter. One has achieved meteoric success and now works at a top American newspaper. The other has been de-platformed and marginalized. Their wildly different fates tell you everything you need to know about Silicon Valley’s free speech double standards.

Some smug elites will downplay Twitter’s disparate treatment of these users by arguing that private tech corporations can do whatever they want and that no First Amendment issues have been raised. But this battle is about much more than free speech rights. It’s about whether the high-and-mighty progressives who monopolize global social media platforms truly believe in nurturing a free speech culture.

By punishing politically incorrect speech and making punitive examples of free thinkers, tech titans are enforcing their own authoritarian version of Silicon Valley sharia — a set of both written and unwritten codes constricting expressions of acceptable thought in the name of “safety” and “civility.”

Laura Loomer was suspended permanently from Twitter over the Thanksgiving holiday for this tweet — and I quote in full:

“Isn’t it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate ‘women, LGBTQ, and minorities’ is a picture of Ilhan Omar? Ilhan is pro Sharia(.) Ilhan is pro-FGM(.) Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish.”

Ilhan Omar is the newly elected Democratic Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota who is indeed pro Sharia. Omar equivocated on a state bill to increase penalties against female genital mutilation. It is a fact that gay people are oppressed and killed under Sharia. It an undeniable truth that women are abused and forced to wear the hijab. Omar has accused Israel of hypnotizing the world, attacked its “evil doings,” and has said she supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against the Jewish state.

Twitter booted Loomer, who is Jewish, off its site for expressing her well-supported opinions, which the social media giant called “hateful conduct.” She has been labeled a “far-right activist” for her mainstream views. As she noted in a new statement posted to her website Tuesday:

“I am just one example of someone who has been banned for discussing issues on social media that big tech companies have deemed as untouchable. All across the world, people are being silenced, censored, and even jailed for having online discussions about Islam, immigration, jihad, and Sharia. I was banned for posting facts about Islam. In other words, non-Muslims are being subjected to Islamic blasphemy laws on social media, progressively.”

If Loomer were a left-wing “Islamophobia”-invoking feminist who practiced undercover or gonzo journalism to go after Republicans, she’d be hailed as an innovative disruptor instead of dismissed by establishment elites on both sides of the political aisle.

Now contrast the fate of 30-year-old Sarah Jeong, who was named an editorial writer at The New York Times in August 2018. Her left-wing colleagues and admirers applauded her “verve and erudition.” And they made much of her diversity status as a “young Asian woman.” This person-of-color shield gave Jeong immunity to post several years’ worth of hateful tweets attacking white people.

“White men are bull—-“;

“#CancelWhitePeople”;

“oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men” and “f— white women lol.”

She has tweeted “f— the police” and “cops are a–holes,” derided fraternity members and athletes wrongfully accused of rape and fumed about “dumba– f—ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

Let’s review: Loomer was kicked off Twitter for calling out Sharia and a culture that promotes hatred of gays, boycotts of Jews and subjugation of women. Before the permanent suspension, Loomer — who had built up a following of more than 250,000 — had her blue check removed and was silenced during the midterm elections when her investigative work was making a difference. She called out Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey for anti-conservative bias at a congressional hearing and was mocked by establishment detractors in both parties.

Meanwhile, Jeong sits on her perch on The New York Times editorial board after using Twitter to spew hatred against all men, all cops, the entire white race — and Twitter. Jeong denies Silicon Valley’s political bias and selective speech suppression, which she has dismissed as a “paranoid fantasy.”

Every day that blue check marked hate-monger Sarah Jeong gets to tweet while Laura Loomer remains silenced reminds us of how powerful social media conglomerates have rigged the free speech playing field.

It’s no fantasy. It’s a nightmare.

FIRST STEP: Pro-cop, pro-borders, pro-criminal justice reform

FIRST STEP: Pro-cop, pro-borders, pro-criminal justice reform
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2018

The package of criminal justice reform proposals endorsed by President Donald Trump is not “soft” on crime. It’s tough on injustice. And it’s about time.

Known as the “First Step Act,” the legislation confronts the Titanic failure of the federal government’s trillion-dollar war on drugs by reforming mandatory minimum sentences, rectifying unscientifically grounded disparities in criminal penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine users, and tackling recidivism among federal inmates through risk assessment, earned-time credit incentive structures, re-entry programs and transitional housing.

There’s nothing radical about giving law-breakers who served their time an opportunity to turn their lives around and avoid ending up back behind bars. More than 30 red and blue states have enacted measures to reduce incarceration, control costs and improve public safety. Texas — no bleeding-heart liberal mecca — spearheaded alternatives to the endless prison-building boom a decade ago by redirecting tax dollars to rehab, treatment and mental health services. The Lone Star state saved an estimated $3 billion in new public construction costs while stemming the prison population tide.

Similar efforts adopted last year in Louisiana — long known as the prison capital of the world — have yielded promising reductions in the recidivism rate. Pelican Institute for Public Policy analyst Margaret Mire reports that “Louisiana’s re-arrest rate in the first nine months is 19 percent, or 7 percentage points, behind the national, annual re-arrest average of 26 percent.” State data show that the re-incarceration rate is down to 6 percent in the same time period — “on pace to be 9 percentage points lower than its full-year average prior to the reforms, or 15 percent.”

Mississippi GOP Gov. Phil Bryant overhauled sentencing mandates, embraced faith-based ministries and funded counseling programs for inmates preparing for their transition to life on the outside. “Crime is down 6 percent,” he reported at a White House prison reform summit earlier this year. “We have 3,000 less inmates. We saved $40 million since 2014. And you can do the same thing.”

Despite staunch support from conservative Republican governors, prosecutors and law enforcement closest to the ground on this issue, the same hyperbolic talking points used by some immovable “law and order” opponents at the state level are now being used against First Step: Cops will be endangered, critics balk. Violent monsters will go free. Child predators and drug kingpins will flood our neighborhoods.

Scary, but deceptive. The plain language of the bill makes clear that its “early release” provisions must be earned. Moreover, as Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee points out: “At all times the Bureau of Prisons retains all authority over who does and does not qualify for early release.” Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, a veteran of the criminal justice system for 20 years, notes that inmates convicted of crimes of violence (including assaults on police), drug trafficking (including hardcore fentanyl and heroin dealing) and child pornography would not qualify for credits. Period. The list of ineligible prisoners is a mile long.

As a staunch opponent of illegal alien amnesty for the past 25 years, the most potent attack by First Step critics concerns whether criminal aliens in federal prisons will be let loose en masse. They won’t. The law states that no prisoner can earn time credits “if that prisoner is an inadmissible or deportable alien under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” And legislative analysts assert that under current Bureau of Prisons’ regulations, a prisoner subject to an ICE detainer wouldn’t be eligible for placement in home confinement, anyway.

Critic Dan Cadman of the Center for Immigration Studies is not satisfied and argues that “the simplest way to make it a clean bill where immigration enforcement is concerned is to say at the beginning of the bill that ‘none of the sections that follow in this bill apply to incarcerated aliens.’” That should be a simple fix and is no reason to prevent First Step from moving to the Senate floor for vigorous debate.

My own awakening to the systemic flaws and failures of our criminal justice system came from viewing it through the eyes of the wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted. Prosecutorial misconduct, police malfeasance, investigative bias and a guilty-until-proven-innocent agenda have ruined lives and squandered limited resources. From there, I’ve come to appreciate activists and practitioners on both sides of the aisle educating people about sweeping “hang ’em high” mandates that ensnare millions of their fellow citizens, clogging up jail space and wasting away productive years.

Our system is at its best when all involved can admit policy failures and work to change them. Why wait?

Making a Murderer 2: A post-conviction master class

Making a Murderer 2: A post-conviction master class
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2018

Undoing wrongful convictions takes a killer instinct.

Chicago-based exoneration specialist Kathleen Zellner’s got it. Her record speaks for itself. Over the past two decades, she has righted more wrongful convictions than any private attorney in America. What’s her secret? The Herculean task of untangling official lies, investigative bias, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective counsel, and forensic junk science to free 19 innocent men requires more than intellectual firepower (of which Zellner possesses a chess grandmaster’s surplus).

The job demands iron will and unshakeable fortitude to beat a system rigged to preserve government errors and protect prosecutions. Like the “Survivor” slogan goes: Outwit, outplay, outlast.

“If someone’s innocent,” Tenacious Z says with trademark bluntness, “you find a way.”

In case you’ve been living in a cave, Zellner is the breakout star of Netflix’s “Making a Murderer 2,” released last month as a follow-up to the original 2015 documentary on the plight of Wisconsin auto salvage worker Steven Avery. He served 18 years for a sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985 that he did not commit. Two years after being exonerated and freed when DNA testing cleared him and identified the real culprit, Manitowoc County police and prosecutors faced Avery’s $36 million civil suit against them.

But just as two of the key architects of the wrongful conviction—former sheriff Tom Kocourek and former prosecutor Denis Vogel—were scheduled to be deposed, murder charges were brought against Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey in the death of photographer Theresa Halbach. The case conveniently short-circuited the landmark civil suit and landed Avery and Dassey in prison, where they remain today.

The copious evidence that Avery and Dassey were framed by corrupt cops and disgraced, sexting-addicted former prosecutor Ken Kratz (whom Zellner affectionately dubs “Sweaty”) is subject to hot debate. But the county of Manitowoc and state of Wisconsin’s unmistakable incentive to perpetrate another wrongful conviction is not. As Chuck Avery, Steven’s brother, noted in the original series:

“There are 36 million reasons why they should be doing this to him.”

In addition to pursuing the “why” and the “how,” MAM2 provides a singular public service: Introducing millions of viewers to the world of post-conviction hell. The procedural obstacles are maddening; the investigative efforts painstaking; and the wait interminable. The series follows Dassey’s lawyers suspenseful trip up to the Supreme Court, but the heart of MAM2 is Zellner’s multi-part master class on how to undermine confidence in a verdict by uncovering new evidence and exposing suppression or concealment of evidence that affected the outcome of the trial.

While old and new fans of the show have been riveted by the post-conviction crash course, snooty New York TV critics and jaded Hollywood entertainment reporters have turned up their noses at the 10-part series. Most of the complaints are nonsensical and self-contradictory: MAM2 is too “slow” and ponderous, they carp, while simultaneously resurrecting criticism of the original series that too much information was left out.

That’s a typical pro-prosecution talking point of the establishment Wisconsin whiners. Leaving out some material is not a sign of subversive bias. This is documentary journalism, not stenography. Let’s get real: Avery’s case record is 20,000 pages long. Any news article or broadcast or documentary on any court case is going to “omit” material. If you need every last bit of information, find a court reporter or file a public information request.

The beauty and genius of MAM2 and Zellner’s approach to unraveling Avery’s wrongful conviction is that it encourages transparency and incentivizes viewers to do their own homework. Zellner’s populist instincts explain her command of Twitter, where her account has exploded since the new series debut last month. Unlike the Good Ol’ Boys Club of government prosecutors and privileged class of media heel-biters, she engages, responds, and crowdsources on social media with the same zeal she brings to every one of her cases. She detests incompetence, secrecy, corruption, and perspirating abusers of power.

I’ve come to know Zellner and her extraordinary work through my own initiation into wrongful convictions over the past two years, when I first started investigating the case of former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw. Zellner is defending Holtzclaw against federal civil suits filed by accusers (many with shocking criminal records of violence and lying) whose uncorroborated, ever-evolving tales of sexual assault were procured by biased detectives and unscrupulous prosecutors.

What especially stands out to me is that in deconstructing fake narratives during her search for truth, Zellner eschews political correctness like no one else in the innocence community. Her exonerees and clients are black and white, poor and middle-class, from ghettos and flyover country, civilians and cops. She doesn’t worry about academic sensitivities or ideological orthodoxy. And she doesn’t yield to elitist expectations about the polite and proper way to “practice” law.

Leave no stone unturned. Make no apologies. Never give up.

That’s the Zellner way.

Say “No” to Nanny Bloomberg

Say “No” to Nanny Bloomberg
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2018

No matter how politically fractured the nation may seem, I believe that liberty-loving citizens of all ideologies can unite and agree:

Billionaire Nanny Michael Bloomberg — the soda-taxing, gun-grabbing, snack-attacking control freak — should keep his nose out of our lives and out of the 2020 presidential race.

On the eve of the midterms, the former New York City mayor dumped $5 million into a self-serving ad bashing President Donald Trump, promoting Democrats, decrying border enforcement and preaching about a “higher purpose” in Washington.

Bloomberg has cast himself as the great healer of the political divide, calling for us to transcend labels, “offer solutions” and “work together” with “calm reasoning” and “opened hands” instead of “hysterics,” “fearmongering” and “pointed fingers.”

Take your phony olive branch and shove it.

It was a hysterical Bloomberg who divisively blamed the 2010 Times Square bomb attack on “somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something” — demonizing Tea Party activists who had risen up against Obamacare — when the real culprit turned out to be a Pakistan-born jihadist on a mission to avenge Muslims and fight foreign infidels.

“Words matter,” the high-minded Bloomberg lectures Trump. But he had no problem flippantly mocking gun-owners in Colorado Springs and Pueblo as poor, uneducated hillbillies who lived in backwater holes “where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get.”

Snotty Bloomberg was nursing massive ego wounds after dumping $350,000 into an unsuccessful effort to stop voters in my adopted home state from recalling radical, anti-Second Amendment state legislators. The grass-roots gun rights groups were outspent 7-to-1 by Bloomie and his minions — and still overcame the outside influence and celebrity attacks on our sovereignty.

So, who exactly are Bloomberg’s constituents? No, not hard-working Americans in flyover country yearning for a government that leaves them alone to decide how to run their lives, enhance their liberty and pursue happiness. No, Bloomberg champions the party of Do As I Say, Not As I Do-ism. He crusades for public transportation from the back seat of a plush SUV. He battles against climate change while flying to Davos and Paris in private jets. He rails against junk food for everyone else while scarfing down Cheez-Its during media interviews about his trans-fat ban.

Liberal media supporters who have touted a potential Bloomberg presidential run for the past 10 years cast him as a middle-of-the-road moderate. But how can you be a “centrist” when you have no center? He was a registered Republican when it was convenient, and then a Democrat, and then an independent, and then a Democrat again. He has bleated about “bipartisanship” at various summits and pooh-bah parties over the years. But his party identification is where his money is: He spent nearly $30 million on Democratic House races this year alone.

Bloomberg is Chauncey Gardiner with a mega-bank account and an insatiable appetite for using his money and power to tell his fellow human beings what’s best for them. He wants government to interfere in every aspect of our lives, while abandoning its core function: protecting our borders and controlling who gets in, who stays in and who should be kicked out.

When politicians bloviate about a “higher purpose,” it’s time to watch your wallets, hide the kids and lock your doors (front, back and refrigerator).

Yes, Unvetted Illegal Caravans Threaten Public Health

Yes, Unvetted Illegal Caravans Threaten Public Health
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2018

We live in bizarro times. Suddenly, it is controversial to state obvious, neon-bright truths. This week, it has become newsworthy to observe that illegal border-crossers who circumvent required medical screenings are a threat to America’s public health and safety.

Just look at these hyperventilating headlines and tweets.

From Newsweek, which is supposed to, you know, report actual news of the week: “‘We don’t know what people have’: Laura Ingraham calls migrant caravan a health issue.”

And from The Daily Beast: “Fox & Friends Host Brian Kilmeade Fears ‘Diseases’ Brought By Migrant Caravan.”

This is not “news.” It’s propaganda recycled and regurgitated by lazy political operatives masquerading as journalists. At least the Newsweek writer gave credit to his zealous hitmen sources: “Ingraham’s comments,” he dutifully wrote, “were first highlighted by Media Matters for America.”

MMfA is a militant left-wing oppo research outfit funded by progressive billionaire George Soros. Somehow, not-really-Newsweek forgot to mention this fact. (Alas, mentioning Soros subsidies has also become a forbidden act this week, but that’s another story.) The determined intent of these “news” pieces is not to inform readers but to inflame them with the dog-whistle assumption that conservatives, Fox personalities and ordinary Americans who worry about diseases from immigration are de facto racists.

On cue, tennis star and celebrity leftist Martina Navratilova barked at Fox News’ Kilmeade on Twitter: “YOU ARE THE DISEASE! the migrants are not the problem, trump and his sycophants, like you, are the problem. Stop spewing fear and prejudice.”

Comedian John Henson tweeted: “Brian Kilmeade is spreading the disease of intolerance every single day…”

And former Clinton press flack-turned CNN hack Joe Lockhart wrote: “This is the disease Fox News spreads every day. They are complicit with Trump in trying to change the character of our country.”

Newsflash, fake newsers: It’s neither racist nor xenophobic nor hateful to discuss the impact of unfettered mass immigration and unvetted caravans of illegal border-crossers on our public health.

My parents, legal immigrants from the Philippines, were screened for a panoply of communicable and infectious diseases.

My husband’s great-great grandparents and their relatives from Ukraine underwent thorough medical and physical exams at Ellis Island immediately after disembarking from their arduous transatlantic journeys. A team of doctors checked for everything from eye disease and muscle weakness to heart conditions, ringworm and mental deficiencies. Those who failed were rejected and ejected. No appeals, no apologies, no amnesty.

I find it especially bizarre that some of the same outspoken, big government advocates for vaccinating every American citizen, young or old, against every possible condition, from the flu to chickenpox to HPV, are the same types now howling over the commonsense idea that we should protect ourselves from foreign diseases.

It wasn’t Trump’s idea to build a wall against microscopic invaders.

The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates medical screening exams for legal immigrants and refugees from around the world. The tests are performed by authorized physicians in either the applicants’ countries of origin or in the United States. The process includes “a physical examination, mental health evaluation, syphilis serologic testing… and chest radiography followed by acid-fast bacillus smears and sputum cultures if the chest radiograph is consistent with tuberculosis (TB).”

Legal immigrants and refugees must provide mandatory proof of vaccination for measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, meningococcus, chicken pox, pneumonia and seasonal flu.

Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control, not Fox News or the Trump White House or any other evil conservatives, reports that “most experts agree that testing for TB, hepatitis B, and HIV should be performed for most new arrivals to the United States. Clinicians should also make a habit of ensuring that this screening has been done for every new non-US-born patient they see, regardless of time since the person’s arrival.”

Actual public health experts across the Southwest have reported rises in drug-resistant TB and dengue fever. In June, Australian public health researchers reported that “scabies, long considered a disease of the past in the developed world, is making its way back.” The scientists pointed to mass global migration as a leading factor, noting scabies outbreaks among refugees to the European Union and along America’s southern border.

And in Germany, federal epidemiologists reported that since opening the floodgates to migrants in 2015, data show “increased incidences in Germany of adenoviral conjunctivitis, botulism, chicken pox, cholera, cryptosporidiosis, dengue fever, echinococcosis, enterohemorrhagic E. coli, giardiasis, haemophilus influenza, Hantavirus, hepatitis, hemorrhagic fever, HIV/AIDS, leprosy, louse-borne relapsing fever, malaria, measles, meningococcal disease, meningoencephalitis, mumps, paratyphoid, rubella, shigellosis, syphilis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis, tuberculosis, tularemia, typhus and whooping cough.”

It’s simply insane to argue we should turn a blind eye to the health status of law-breaking aliens. And it’s treachery, yes, treachery, for so-called journalists to use their platforms to blithely smear those who dare to question open borders orthodoxy or report the highly inconvenient facts.

Posted in: Immigration