Virtue-signaling, the lazy, self-justifying compulsion of most progressives you went to school with, is the act of communicating by words, actions, or illustration their passion for some social justice issue that makes them look 1) caring; 2) in step with the times. It doesn’t need to be followed up with any walking of the talk, it just needs to be signified on Facebook cover photos, t-shirts, or words spoken a little louder than necessary at Starbucks. And although the hot social issue du jour for leftists changes a bit every 2 – 3 years, when an issue is “in”, it’s In. And today what’s In is “Welcoming Refugees”.
Michael Cutler, a retired Senior Special Agent of the former United States INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years, worked as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue.
In a recent article in Frontpage Magazine entitled “Immigration Failure — By Design”, Mr. Cutler described how America’s enforcement of immigration policy has all but collapsed after decades of cluttered and inefficient bureaucracy, lack of transparency with regard to both Congress and the American people, and corrupt political agendas. This is a failure that must be laid at the doorstep of the Washington establishment in general, as it was a problem long in the making through many congresses and presidential administrations. The Obama administration, however, has taken several unilateral actions that have virtually emptied the term immigration law enforcement of its very definition. Below is Cutler’s essay in its entirety.
A recent article in FrontPage magazine examined how Conservatism suffers from a lack of sexy.
In “The Art of Political War” [David] Horowitz observes that progressives have inverted Clausewitz’s famous dictum and treat politics as “war continued by other means.” By contrast, conservatives approach politics as a debate over policy. Conservatives generally and Republicans in particular, either fail to understand that there is a political war taking place, or disapprove of the fact that there is. Conservatives approach politics as a series of management issues, and hope to impose limits on what government may do. Their paradigm is based on individualism, compromise, and partial solutions. This puts conservatives at a distinct disadvantage in political combats with the left, whose paradigm of oppression and liberation inspires missionary zeal and is perfectly suited to aggressive tactics and no-holds-barred combat.
How has it come to this?
If anyone is still having trouble just coming to grips with the fact that we, as a nation, are actually debating whether to inject men into women’s bathrooms, you’re not alone. You should still be having trouble coming to grips with it, especially with so many issues facing our nation right now that are actually substantive.
An interesting observation on the phenomenon of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton trying to outdo each other in their attempt to be more Left than each other.
In a rousing speech at the University of Minnesota last month, David Horowitz, founder and chairman of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, told students, “I don’t see anything different in the agendas of the people who call themselves progressives today and the Communists I grew up with in the Stalin era. They were for income redistribution and the coddling of criminals; their sympathies were with America’s enemies – and have remained so ever since. They were for totalitarian solutions to ‘make the world a better place.’ How is this different from today’s progressives except that they don’t have the power yet to impose their utopia by force? The so-called liberal professors at this university, as at the other 400 or more I have visited, have purged their faculties of conservatives who are now rarer than unicorns. No true believer in democracy could make a peace with this.”
I’m predicting election-day violence in 2016. Probably starting before election day, actually, in an attempt to destabilize and energize. Massive attempt to cast doubt upon the results of the election. This is what the Left has to do (and has done on smaller scales) to have any chance of not losing a significant amount of power. What would Alinsky do?