Connect with us

Opinion

Team Biden keeps hyping phony ‘domestic violent extremism’ threat

Published

on

Team Biden keeps hyping phony 'domestic violent extremism' threat

With illegal migrants crossing the southern border by the hundreds of thousands and setting new records by the month, the Department of Homeland Security’s top priority — somehow — is “domestic violent extremism,” and it doesn’t even mean Antifa.

“President Joe Biden’s top appointees have called white supremacists the greatest security threat to the country and are pushing for bolstered intelligence gathering,” the Associated Press reported last week, noting that DHS “plans to ramp up social media tracking as part of an enhanced focus on domestic violent extremism,” for which the department has opened a new office in its intelligence branch.

Yes, the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was awful, but that collection of crackpots is no serious national-security threat or there’d have been some sign of more such trouble in the months since.

Yet Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines published a “threat assessment” focusing on “white extremism.” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has ordered an internal review to address “threats” within the department’s ranks. (“Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal and persistent terrorism-related threat to our country today,” he declared.)

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered a 60-day stand down in February to review the ranks of the military for this extremism. And Attorney General Merrick Garland marked the 26th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing by saying, “The Department of Justice is pouring its resources into stopping domestic violent extremists before they can attack.”

It doesn’t end. As soon as the CDC relaxed its guidance for the vaccinated, DHS announced: “Violent extremists may seek to exploit the easing of COVID-19-related restrictions across the United States to conduct attacks against a broader range of targets after previous public capacity limits reduced opportunities for lethal attacks,” adding that the violent, fueled by “false narratives,” are “likely to exploit Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech activity.”

But the main pusher of false narratives is the Biden administration itself. Yes, the FBI and others should certainly keep an eye on all extremist activity (and you can bet that the feds have infiltrated all known groups), but all the facts on the ground suggest the main such threat is on the left, such as the Antifa loons plaguing Portland.

Yet here’s DHS, looking to end-run the Constitution to use third parties to surveil right-wing activity it can’t legally monitor itself.

We don’t doubt that Democratic officials across the country get a ton of nasty hate mail and social-media abuse. But so do Republicans — it’s the world we all live in now. By endlessly flogging a menace that plainly doesn’t exist on any meaningful scale, all Team Biden is doing is feeding paranoia and deepening the nation’s divisions.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

Published

on

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

When President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court last fall, hysterical Democrats declared millions of Americans would lose health coverage with her vote against ObamaCare — and immediately started talking about packing a court they called hopelessly divided.

Two big Supreme Court decisions last week proved reality turned out to be nothing like Dems’ fever dreams.

In a 7-2 decision in California v. Texas, the high court rejected a Republican bid to invalidate ObamaCare — and Barrett was not one of the two dissenters. It ruled that Texas and 17 other GOP-led states didn’t have standing to challenge the law’s individual mandate. The Trump administration had taken their side, while 20 Democratic-run states including New York and California, along with the Dem-controlled House of Representatives, took the other. Only Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented to the majority opinion the liberal Stephen Breyer authored.

How could this be? Last year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.” In her opening statement at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Kamala Harris held up a picture of an 11-year-old constituent and accused Republicans of trying “to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away health care from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.”

Democrats boycotted the final committee vote, filling their seats instead with posters of ObamaCare recipients, implying a vote for Barrett would put those lives at risk.

During the whole childish circus, they insisted Trump had picked Barrett and sped up her confirmation just so she’d be seated in time to hear arguments in the case and dismantle the law. They didn’t bother to look at her record and examine her judicial philosophy — they assumed this well-qualified woman would be the president’s puppet.

In the second important decision, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the court ruled unanimously that the city violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause by suspending Catholic Social Services’ contract because the group wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

Yes, all nine justices ruled in favor of religious freedom — putting paid to Democratic complaints the court is out of balance with too many conservatives. It’s far from the only unanimous decision already this term, either. Every justice signed on to decisions written by Gorsuch, Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, with two of the cases involving immigration issues.

That people of varying political stripes can agree on the law shouldn’t come as a surprise. Supreme Court justices take their jobs seriously — which is more than you can say for Democrats charged with helping choose them.

Continue Reading

Opinion

New book takes lessons on aging from our seniorcelebs

Published

on

New book takes lessons on aging from our seniorcelebs

Age should bring wisdom

Joe Boredom and Nancy Pelousy made age the new “in.”

So now comes Steven Petrow, of the Washington Post’s “Stupid Things I Won’t Do When I Get Old: A Highly Judgmental, Unapologetically Honest Accounting of All the Things Our Elders Are Doing Wrong.” The title’s longer than the Kensington Press book, which claims studios love golden vets with silver hair.

Jean Smart (70 in September) is in HBO’s something or other, Jane Fonda (83), Ellen Burstyn (88), Liam Neeson (69), Helen Mirren (75), Morgan Freeman (84), Harrison Ford (78). Alan Arkin, 87 co-emoting with Michael Douglas (77 in September).

The book says to trade kitsch for kvetch. And go outside your same antique circle since inter-generational friendships improve well-being. Color your hair? Uh-uh. Inky black roots telegraphs “I’m desperate!” Only give it a shot if your colorist is as good as Diane Sawyer’s.

And forget your chorus of aches and pains. Limit health talk to one single cocktail.

Creaking along: Dolly Parton, 75; Patti Smith, 74; Bruce Springsteen, 72 come September; Mark Harmon, 70, Sept. 2; Jill Biden, 70; Martha Stewart, 80 in August; Mitt Romney, 74; Chuck Grassley, 87; Mitch McConnell, 79. Oy, Mitch.

And for all of us on our next birthday, maybe a colonoscopy.

I spy . . . Madge

Where you were last week, I don’t know. Where Madonna was, I know. She was enjoying Immersive Van Gogh at Pier 36 . . . I also know about Bette Midler. “The Rose,” a tale of the high price of fame, which starred her as a self-destructive rocker (and got her an Oscar nom), is being remade starring Cynthia Erivo.

Welcome to New York City

Arizona’s Sen. Kyrsten Sinema dropped into NYC and dug in at the W hotel in Union Square. She had a broken foot. She wanted room service. Due to COVID the front desk said no. Along with our usual friendly warmth, they told her to order out . . . The Olympic games start next month. Biden’s iffy on attending in person. Right now the White House leans to NO — maybe because Biden himself leans . . . Chuck Schumer received five pairs of Father’s Day socks courtesy of his toddler grandson. With zero going on in the Senate, pay attention to Chuck’s ankles. He’ll be flashing them this week.

Film fiasco

The film “The Fortress 2” just wrapped filming in Puerto Rico. The elements were not kind to the cast of Bruce Willis, Shannen Doherty, “Desperate Housewives” Jesse Metcalfe and producer Randall Emmett, who’s about to marry Lala Kent of “Vanderpump Rules.” It was intermittent power outages on set and at their hotels. To make up for it, Noel Ashman, also celebrating his upcoming film “Baby and Max,” also celebrating a birthday, is also giving them a party Thursday at Noir.

Stray thoughts

One thought: Topping our historic year is our coming New York City election. Seems that for many voters it’s maybe not everyone’s pick — it’s not who we really really love — it’s dredging down to who we dislike the least. . . . And a comment from one of our top NY restaurateurs: “They’re not spending like they used to. It’s different. They’re cheaper.”


From a weary dad: “When I finally get taken to my heavenly rest, I want my ashes scattered over Bloomingdale’s. This way, maybe I could be sure that at least twice a week my daughter will visit me.”

Only in New York, kids, only in New York.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Letters to the Editor — June 21, 2021

Published

on

Letters to the Editor — June 21, 2021

The Issue: Mayor de Blasio’s lack of response to rising crime and disorder in Washington Square Park.

Mayor de Blasio abandoned the city during his failed run for president, making him “the national idiot” (“DeB ‘didn’t see a problem’!?!” June 18).

The clueless progressive has abandoned the city again by failing to acknowledge the worst crime crisis since the 1970s or to do anything to protect the people who pay his and his wife’s hefty salaries.

Kathryn Donnelly

Queens

As a native New Yorker who did not flee the crime waves and lower quality of life during the 1970s-1990s, I’m am reconsidering (“Bloodshed, Bedlam & Clueless Blas,” Editorial, June 15).

Another criminal rampage beset Washington Square Park recently, ending in 14 shootings, two knifings, vicious assaults, attacks on businesses and more, as the NYPD was held at bay.

Mayor de Blasio’s answer to the depravity that went on in the park? A “natural” resolution will work things out, whatever that may mean.

If we had a choice between a natural resolution against the high crime rate or allowing the NYPD to do their job, I’ll choose the NYPD.

J. Marie Norris

Brooklyn

Our mayor has decided to turn a blind eye to the problem.

A curfew was suppose to be in place a week or two ago, but our mayor is holding the NYPD from performing its duties.

It is no longer safe to walk through the park or even around it after the sun is down. Assaults, drug use and loud music make it total mayhem there — a Sodom and Gomorrah at night, all because the mayor refuses to acknowledge the out-of-control situation.

What’s it going to take before he wakes up?

Joseph Comperchio

Brooklyn

So the residents around Washington Square Park are upset by the disorder? What did they expect?

They helped elect government officials who enacted no-bail reform, emptied half of Rikers Island, disbanded the anti-crime units and removed limited liability for the police.

Then there are prosecutors who will not prosecute and judges who are soft on criminals.

On top of that, the residents helped elect a doofus mayor — not once but twice.

Gary Layton

Interlaken, NJ

The Issue: A city-backed program that will give $1,250 per month to young homeless people.

A program backed by the city plans to give $1,250 a month to the homeless (“Young NYC homeless people to get $1,250 each month in city-backed study,” June 18).

The intentions are certainly noble, but here’s the problem: The homeless population in New York City has a very high percentage of drug addicts.

Where exactly do these fools think this money will be spent — on school supplies? Are you kidding me? Which genius came up with this idea?

Drug addicts will always spend any and all available cash on drugs. Period. That’s the nature of the desperation that addiction brings with it.

The recipients will not be held accountable for where the money is spent. It doesn’t take a genius to realize the disaster this program will be.

Norman Gold

West Hempstead

Now a city-backed program will give young homeless people $1,250 per month to spend as they wish — more brilliant social engineering by the left.

Most homeless people have serious personality disorders, and no amount of money will get them off the street. We need homes and halfway homes — if you can get the homeless to actually stay in them.

Lloyd Zimet

Stuyvesant

The Issue: A city-backed program that will give $1,250 per month to young homeless people.

A program backed by the city plans to give $1,250 a month to the homeless (“Cash for young on streets,” June 19).

The intentions are certainly noble, but here’s the problem: The homeless population in New York City has a very high percentage of drug addicts.

Where exactly do these fools think this money will be spent — on school supplies? Are you kidding me? Which genius came up with this idea?

Drug addicts will always spend any and all available cash on drugs. Period. That’s the nature of the desperation that addiction brings with it.

The recipients will not be held accountable for where the money is spent. It doesn’t take a genius to realize the disaster this program will be.

Norman Gold

West Hempstead

Now a city-backed program will give young homeless people $1,250 per month to spend as they wish — more brilliant social engineering by the left.

Most homeless people have serious personality disorders, and no amount of money will get them off the street. We need homes and halfway homes — if you can get the homeless to actually stay in them.

Lloyd Zimet

Stuyvesant

Want to weigh in on today’s stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to [email protected]. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.

Continue Reading

Trending