In 1994, after 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans swept both houses of Congress, running on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” in which the GOP promised to hold votes on 10 popular policies in the first 100 days. They won, fulfilled the contract, and went on to control the House for more than a decade.
We have written frequently about the European “migrant crisis” of 2015: its origins, how the media misrepresent it, and why it is such a threat to Europe. We have profiled the keys personalities, from Angela Merkel, to Geert Wilders, to Viktor Orban, and reviewed several books about different aspects of the crisis. We have also published accounts of how sevral countries are handling the crisis (Italy, Russia, Poland, France), and covered the terrorist attacks this invasion has brought. We have also written about the organizations that have taken a stand to fight for Europe.
Here are some of the most memorable photos of the crisis from the last two years.
“Is Russia an enemy of the United States?” NBC’s Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, “Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug.”
To Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., entertained an offer from the Russians for dirt on Clinton could be considered “treason.”
Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war.
Are we really at war with Russia? Is Russia really our enemy?
“Why Russia is a Hostile Power” is the title of today’s editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city:
“Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy.”
Yet, accommodating a sphere of influence for a great power is exactly what FDR and Churchill did with Stalin, and every president from Truman to George H. W. Bush did with the Soviet Union.
When East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles rose up against Communist regimes, no U.S. president intervened. For those nations were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to in 1945.
Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of “suicidal nationalism” for contemplating independence from Russia.
When did support for spheres of influence become un-American?
As for supporting “corruption over transparency,” ex-Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili resigned in disgust as governor of Odessa in November, accusing Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, our man in Kiev, of supporting corruption.
As for favoring “repression over democracy,” would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history?
The Post brought up the death in prison of lawyer-activist Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. Under the Magnitsky Act of 2012, Congress voted sanctions on Russia’s elites.
Yet China’s lone Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, sentenced to 11 years in prison for championing democracy, died Thursday of liver cancer, with police in his hospital room. Communist dictator Xi Jinping, who makes Putin look like Justin Trudeau, would not let the dying man go.
Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don’t bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally — kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia.
What are the roots of this hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin, whom a Fox analyst called “as bad as Hitler”?
During the Cold War, every president sought detente with a USSR that was arguably the most blood-soaked regime of the century.
When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place.
Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War.
Putin’s Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years.
Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.
Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime.
Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med?
Russia has meddled in our election. And we have meddled in the affairs of half a dozen nations with “color-coded revolutions.” The cry of “regime change!” may daily be heard in the U.S. Capitol.
Putin is not Pope Francis. But he is not Stalin; he is not Hitler; he is not Mao; and Russia today is not the USSR. Putin is an autocrat cut from the same bolt of cloth as the Romanov czars.
His cooperation is crucial to the peace of the world, the freedom of the Baltic States, an end to the Syrian civil war, tranquility in the Persian Gulf, and solving the North Korean crisis.
While our tectonic plates may rub against one another, we are natural allies. The Russia of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Solzhenitsyn and the Orthodox Church belongs with the West.
If America stumbles into a war with Russia that all our Cold War presidents avoided, the Russia baiters and Putin haters will be put in same circle of hell by history as the idiot war hawks of 1914 and the three blind men of Versailles in 1919.
At the G-20 in Hamburg, it is said, President Trump was isolated, without support from the other G-20 members, especially on climate change and trade.
Perhaps so. But the crucial question is not whether Trump is alone, but whether he is right. Has Trump read the crisis of the West correctly? Are his warnings valid? Is not the Obama-Merkel vision of a New World Order a utopian fantasy?
At the monument to the patriots of the Warsaw Uprising, Trump cited Poland as exemplar of how a great people behaves in a true national crisis.
Calling the Polish people “the soul of Europe,” he related how, in the Miracle of the Vistula in 1920, Poland, reborn after 12 decades of subjugation, drove back the invading Red Army of Leon Trotsky.
He described the gang rape of Poland by Nazis and Soviets after the Hitler-Stalin pact. He cited the Katyn Forest massacre of the Polish officer corps by Stalin, and the rising of the Polish people against their Nazi occupiers in 1944, as the vulturous legions of Stalin watched from the safe side of the river.
When the Polish Pope, John Paul II, celebrated his first Mass in Victory Square in 1979, said Trump, “a million Polish men, women and children raised their voices in a single prayer. . . . ‘We want God.’ . . . Every Communist in Warsaw must have known that their oppressive system would soon come crashing down.” And so it did.
The crisis of the West today, said Trump, is akin to what Poland faced. For it is about the survival of a civilization, rooted in Christianity, that has made the greatest of all contributions to the ascent of man.
What enabled the Poles to endure was an unshakable belief in and a willingness to fight for who they were — a people of God and country, faith, families, and freedom — with the courage and will to preserve a nation built on the truths of their ancient tribe and Catholic traditions.
Given the threats to the West, from within and without, said Trump, we need such a spirit now. What are those threats?
“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?
“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive.”
Trump professed confidence in the West’s will to survive. But whether the West still has the character seems an open question.
Across the West, the traditional family has been collapsing for decades. Not one European nation has a birth rate that will enable its people to survive many more generations. Uninvited migrants in the millions have poured in — are pouring in — from Africa and the Middle East. The elite of Europe have been gladly surrendering their national sovereignties to transnational institutions like the EU.
Christianity is more of a dying than a thriving faith on the Old Continent. And as the churches empty out, the mosques are going up. Before our eyes, the West is being remade.
In June, gays and lesbians celebrated in Berlin as the German Parliament voted to approve same-sex marriage.
In Moscow, from May to July, a million Russians stood in lines a mile long to view and venerate a relic of the 4th-century bishop, St. Nicholas, on display in a glass case in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, rebuilt under President Putin.
Liberated from Leninism, Russia returns to the old faith, as Germany returns to Weimar.
At that G-20 gathering in Hamburg, hundreds of criminal thugs went on a three-day rampage — rioting, burning, looting and battling police, some 300 of whom were injured.
Were the autocrats of the G-20 — Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Narendra Modi of India — impressed with the resolute response of Angela Merkel — the media-designated new “Leader of the West” — to mobs rioting in Germany’s second city?
At Harvard, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described what was on display in Hamburg: “A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. . . . Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite.”
Secularist and hedonist, New Europe worships at the altars of mammon. Handel’s “Messiah” cannot compete with moonwalking Michael Jackson’s “We are the World.”
Once Europe went out to convert, colonize and Christianize the world. Now the grandchildren of the colonized peoples come to Europe to demand their share of their inheritance from a West besotted with guilt over its past sins that cannot say “No!”
Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017, 343 pp., $23.40.
This is an important book. Something remarkable has happened when a prominent British author and associate editor of The Spectator begins a volume with these words: “Europe is committing suicide.” On the first page, Douglas Murray explains that this is suicide by immigration and that “by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.” Few authors express so passionate a love Europe or such a keen sense of what could be lost. Perhaps none has so ably described the lies, cowardice, self-loathing, and lassitude that have set calamity in motion.
The title of the Washington Post story solemnly read: “Funeral, vigil for Muslim teen killed in attack near mosque draw throngs.”
The article notes that the police believe the killing was a result of a road-rage argument, but that they have not ruled out the possibility of a hate crime. They haven’t ruled it out because during investigations, very little is ruled out. But there is no evidence to suggest it was a hate crime.
Why was there a vigil and not just a funeral? Vigils are usually for victims of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or freak accidents. Have you ever heard of a vigil for someone who was killed in a road rage incident?
Maybe there was a vigil because people thought the girl, Nabra Hassanen, was killed because she was Muslim, not because she cut someone off. Titles of news stories certainly suggested that:
“Killing of Muslim teen stirs questions about hate crime prosecutions” — Washington Post
Needless to say, if this murder was a product of road-rage, the facts that the victim was Muslim and near a Mosque are superfluous. It’s as though the media were trying to insinuate something they know to be false. The Washington Post piece titled “Killing of Muslim teen stirs questions about hate crime prosecutions,” even notes in the second paragraph that police believe it was not a hate crime. The article then adds that the girl’s family want a hate-crime investigation. That is the “questions about hate crime prosecutions” of the title: The family believes it was a hate crime, but has no evidence that it was.
There is more.
The man who killed this girl was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. None of the stories listed above mentions this—not one. I searched each article for politically correct euphemisms such as “undocumented,” or even just “immigrant.” Most don’t even mention his distinctly Hispanic name, “Darwin Martinez Torres.”
Why would media outlets fail to mention this?
The difference between what happened and what is insinuated is stark. From the headlines, any reader would assume that a white bigot beat a Muslim teenager to death because of her religion. An accurate headline would have been: “Illegal Immigrant Kills Teenage Girl in Road-Rage Incident.”
The mainstream and leftist media don’t actually “lie,” or publish blatant falsehoods so much as distort the truth and skip over details or even entire stories that don’t fit their narrative.
Earlier this week, when a police officer at the Flint, Michigan, airport was stabbed in the neck by a man who screamed “Allahu akbar,” The Guardian ran a story about it titled, “Michigan police officer stabbed in the neck at Flint city airport.” The story never mentioned the words “Allahu akbar,” even though plenty of earlier stories had reported it. For some reason, the reporter thought that detail wasn’t important.
Perhaps it is a surprise The Guardian covered the knife attack at all. The further left a publication is, the less it covers terrorism or crime of any kind. For example, Jacobin and The Baffler never ran a single story about the terrorist bombing of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. And if an outlet isn’t reporting on a terrorist attack on that scale, you can be sure it is not reporting on black-on-white crime, the MS-13 gang, or violence against Trump supporters.
Media silence about rape is particularly shocking. The country is saturated with feminist media: Cosmopolitan, Bitch Media, Feministing, Jezebel, and Ms. to name some examples. Furthermore, every substantial leftist outlet has a “feminist beat,” and virtually every one of their female employees would call herself a feminist. However, I cannot find a single feminist or even leftist outlet that wrote about the case of Luis Baez.
Luis Baez went to trial in late April for raping a woman while driving for Uber under a fake name. He was in the country illegally, had been deported previously, and had two other rape charges in the past. The prosecution recommended bail be set to at least $100,000, and that he wear a GPS tracking device if he managed to post bail. The judge set bail at $2,500, with no GPS tracker. Mr. Baez scraped the money together, and has since disappeared. The judge was a woman.
This story was reported by local sources, tabloids, and conservative media. Nowhere can I find a story about this on anything remotely left-wing. Those outlets are too busy complaining about President Trump’s chauvinism, “rape culture,” and the lack of female authors in college curricula.
I am genuinely curious how a woman could decide to let a rapist go. What could this judge have been thinking? If there was ever a case of what feminist theorists call “internalized misogyny,” surely this is it. If ever there was an example of “rape culture” in our judiciary, it is when a judge lets a thrice-charged rapist get away. But no feminist would write about this because reporting on the crimes committed by illegals is racist.
Although the Left is certainly more guilty of this kind of biased reporting than the right, there is culpability all around. Ann Coulter’s most recent column contained a link to the American Renaissance map of hate crimes committed against Trump supporters. However, two websites that syndicate Miss Coulter’s column, Breitbart and Townhall, felt the need to delete the passage that linked to us. Although those outlets defend Trump supporters, if the documentation of attacks on supporters comes from “racists” like us, they eliminate the documentation.
This is what we call “biased media.”