Thursday, August 31, 2017

Berkeley’s Antifa Takeover Shows There Is Evil On Both Sides



By Robert Tracinski         
Wednesday, August 30, 2017

The media spent the last two weeks, after the deadly riot in Charlottesville, denouncing the notion that there were two sides responsible for the violence and specifically praising the far-left’s black-clad “Antifa” brawlers as freedom fighters who are saving us from Nazism. Then, on Sunday, Antifa was filmed attacking random people on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley, looking and acting exactly like a fascist militia bent on imposing rule by force.

This is a timely warning that the media is using the shock and horror of one evil, a newly brazen white nationalism, to panic us into submission to the horror of another evil. This media trope was established by criticism of President Trump for condemning violence on “both sides” in Charlottesville. Since anything Trump says must necessarily be wrong, it therefore became unacceptable for anyone to say that there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville.

But there was violence on both sides. That was clear from videos and photo essays and was described by reporters at the time. That even includes reporters who, in the process of factually describing the violence on both sides, still imposed the narrative that both sides weren’t to blame.

For example, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg acknowledged the “hatred” with which the black-clad Antifa attacked their opponents, but then the Twitter mob pressured her to recant. In the old days, we used to speculate that reporters and commentators tailored their views based on what they thought would get them invited to DC and New York cocktail parties. Now they tailor their views to avoid the amplified gossip of random people on a social media platform. Decide for yourself which is worse.

But the new edict had been delivered by the vox populi of political Twitter, and everyone fell in line. The Left has given up violence, having “cleansed itself through a painful process of introspection,” according to an opinion piece in the Washington Post. Even if they are violent, it’s just not the same thing, because they’re not motivated by “hate” when they club people over the head. They’re violent in a good way, and only against the bad guys. In fact, come to think of it, they’re just like the GIs who stormed Omaha Beach!

No, really, this actually became a meme, the most famous version of which came from The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

Watching ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ a movie a group of very aggressive alt-left protesters invading a beach without a permit.

Funny, I must have missed the part in “Saving Private Ryan” where Tom Hanks’s character is a radical socialist. Maybe it’s in the director’s cut.

After the media worked so hard to establish this new dogma, Antifa thugs repaid their courtesies by staging what can only be described as a violent takeover of the Berkeley campus. Ostensibly this was in response to a “No to Marxism in America” rally that never even happened. But it didn’t matter whether it happened Antifa used it as an excuse to attack any passersby suspected of being white nationalists or merely conservatives or Trump supporters.


The guy this mob is beating up isn’t a white nationalist or even a conservative, so far as anyone knows. He’s a cameraman covering the event—which I guess is where the press finally draws the line. Violence is bad, when it’s directed against them. The Antifa mob also assaulted and pepper-sprayed Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson, a moderate who advocates for “love, unity, and peace.”

Here’s another scene of Antifa attacking an “apparent alt-righter.”

Notice the black man rushing in to cover the body of the man being beaten on the ground, protecting him from Antifa—which undermines the whole narrative about how they’re protecting black people from racists.

Some of us have long warned that college campuses are becoming like one-party dictatorships, intolerant of any opinions or culture the Left opposes. But up to now, this cloying monoculture has largely been accepted and enforced through voluntary means. They chose conformity. Now the universities are becoming literal pockets of totalitarian rule—zones in which those with dissenting political opinions face the prospect of being beaten by an angry mob.

Actually, it’s more anarchic than that. The Antifa mobs weren’t stopping people to interrogate them about their political opinions. In one video a middle-aged man and his college-aged son are being attacked, and he starts by asking, in a bewildered tone, “What are you guys beating us up for?” The only answer he gets is a fist in the face, and that’s the only answer any of us are liable to get when Antifa comes for us.

That’s what gives Antifa the genuine stamp of a totalitarian movement. They have gone from attacking “fascists” to attacking anyone who is not them, anyone who is not a member of the party.

Some in the media are starting to wake up. The same Washington Post that had recently explained to us how nonviolent the Left is suddenly is blaring unambiguous headlines like “Black-Clad Antifa Members Attack Peaceful Right-Wing Demonstrators in Berkeley.”

Vox took a peculiar middle path, declaring that beating up political opponents is bad, but not because it’s repellent in and of itself. It’s bad because it could lead to bad publicity: “such violence can reinforce right-wing views about the left.” Imagine that.

But others are digging deeper. A prominent leftist writer and television host who just goes by the name Touré is still hailing Antifa as heroes.

If white supremacists are American terrorists then those willing to physically fight them are doing heroic work.

One of the mysteries of Antifa is that it’s hard to say exactly what their wider program is. They are communists, but in an old tradition of the anarchist left. In practice that means—well, it’s what you see in these videos. It’s what someone once called anarcho-totalitarianism. It is lust for power in its most elemental form: beating self-designated “enemies” as an end in itself, for the thrill of exercising physical power and coercion directly on the body of another person. It is how George Orwell described the steady state of the perfect totalitarian system: a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

Conventional liberals have toyed with a similar motive in a much more diluted and genteel form. They have indulged in the ritual of casting everyone who disagrees with them as a racist and fascist in order to establish their own sense of moral authority by comparison. What they haven’t figured out yet is that this seemingly benign thrill of self-congratulation is just a weaker form of the same impulse, a diluted form of the lust for power.

It starts with enjoying being part of a social-media mob that gets some guy fired from his job or forces some other guy into a groveling public apology in order to enjoy one’s own sense of power and authority as the imposer of these humiliations. But if you keep indulging this impulse, it ends with seeking the sense of control over others that comes from smashing your fist into someone’s face.

In case there’s any doubt as to where I stand—and if you’ve read beyond the headline of this article, you’re way ahead of everybody else on Twitter, so there’s some hope—I think that a variant of this same evil drives the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. The urge to denigrate people from other racial and ethnic backgrounds is a similar attempt to establish your own superiority by imposing humiliation on someone else—as well as a naked admission that you have no other way to demonstrate your personal merit.

The escalation of this urge to rule by force is revealed in all of the Nazi nostalgia, the theatricality of swastikas and torches. It’s all about pretending to be the tough guy who shows he’s superior to everyone else by bashing their skulls in—even if the current wannabes are starting out slowly by smacking people with sticks and running them down with cars.

But the riots in Berkeley should put to rest the idea that criticizing Antifa creates a false “moral equivalence” between the violent left and the violent right. It does create such an equivalence, but it’s not false. In the past century, that was established so thoroughly that it can be encapsulated in a single meme.



For the benefit of college students, the guy in that photo is Joseph Stalin. He was the Communist dictator of the Soviet Union and a member of the violent “anti-fascist” left, and he imprisoned, tortured, and murdered at least as many innocent people as Hitler did.

To those on the moderate left, I know that you don’t want to give up on the dream of socialism. But how many times does that dream have to turn into a nightmare before you start to question it? The events of the past week—exaggerated praise and water-carrying for Antifa, followed by clear evidence that it really stands for terror and oppression—is a re-enactment in miniature of the cultural elite’s fascination with Communism during the twentieth century. Don’t be one of the bitter clingers who need to learn that lesson in much more horrifying form before you finally see the truth.

White nationalism and Antifa are both assaults on freedom and American values. They are both violent movements that ultimately seek rule by force as an end in itself. They are moral equivalents, and if we want to save our civilization, we have to stand firm—and stand together—against both illiberal sides.

Why Don’t Sanctuary City Sheriffs Have To Obey The Laws Like Joe Arpaio Does?



By Donna Carol Voss      
Thursday, August 31, 2017

In 2013, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was enjoined from continuing his notorious “immigration sweeps” in Maricopa County, Arizona. At the time, his deputies were known to target predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods for traffic stops, and Arpaio was convicted of racial profiling. U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow permanently enjoined Arpaio and his deputies from “detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization.”

Nonetheless, Arpaio allowed his deputies to continue the sweeps. He also continued holding illegal aliens without a criminal warrant, in violation of Snow’s injunction against “detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law.”

Maricopa County’s practice was to turn aliens with criminal warrants over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but ICE wouldn’t take the ones without warrants, so Arpaio had them driven to Border Patrol. The 75-minute car ride from Maricopa County to the border was found to be unlawful detainment because if an individual isn’t charged with a crime, the Fourth Amendment says he’s free to go.

Because Arpaio failed to heed Snow’s injunction, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton convicted him of criminal contempt last month and set the sentencing hearing for October 5. The sentencing, however, will never take place because late Friday afternoon, President Trump pardoned Arpaio.

Cue Sudden Love for Rule of Law Among Its Breakers

When Arpaio was pardoned despite willful racial profiling and unlawful holds, the Left went nuts. They must have all texted each other simultaneously and said, “This is so awesome. We’ve got him on the rule of law. Loser!”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “pardon of fellow birther Arpaio makes mockery of rule of law…” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted, “Joe Arpaio ignored the courts and the rule of law…” Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, wrote on her Facebook page, and not in a good way, that “Trump allies are above the law…”

Meanwhile, sanctuary city sheriffs all over the country willfully violate the federal statute against prohibiting or restricting communication with ICE, and the Left considers them heroes. If constitutional law is the standard, how do sanctuary city sheriffs get away with not enforcing federal laws passed by Congress? Isn’t the power of Congress to enact laws as much a part of the Constitution as the Fourth Amendment is?

The kneejerk rationalization from sanctuary cities is that state and local law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal immigration law. But Congress addressed that apparent dilemma when it passed 8 U.S.C. 1373.

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. [emphasis added]

Congress didn’t mandate that states enforce federal immigration law. In the interest of protecting the American people, Congress mandated that one government entity (local law enforcement) not prohibit or restrict communication regarding immigration status with another government entity (ICE).

Two Kinds of Immigration Enforcement Disdain

While Arpaio was enforcing laws a court told him he had no business enforcing, sanctuary jurisdictions were refusing to enforce laws Congress told them they had to enforce. For example, the New Orleans Police Department mandated that “Members shall not disclose information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any person unless required to do so by state or federal law.”

But as the inspector general noted in a May 31, 2016 memo to the Department of Justice, 1373 does not require that jurisdictions disclose information, only that they not prohibit or restrict sharing of immigration status information with ICE. “[U]nless the understanding of NOPD’s employees is that they are not prohibited or restricted from sharing immigration status information with ICE, the policy would be inconsistent with Section 1373.”

San Francisco likewise mandated that “No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision.”

The IG likewise questioned their compliance with 1373 in that “unless the understanding of San Francisco employees is that they are permitted to share immigration status information with ICE, the policy would be inconsistent with Section 1373.” Where is the concern over constitutional adherence from sanctuary city sheriffs? Why is it that only certain laws (read: “favored by the Left”) are exempt from enforcement?

‘No One Is Above the Law’

Sen. John McCain issued a statement criticizing the pardon, and—you guessed it—emphasizing the rule of law: “No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold…The President has the authority to make this pardon, but doing so at this time undermines his claim for the respect of rule of law as Mr. Arpaio has shown no remorse for his actions.”

The first sentence of McCain’s statement should be read aloud to all law officers and elected officials in the country: “No one is above the law and the individuals entrusted with the privilege of being sworn law officers should always seek to be beyond reproach in their commitment to fairly enforcing the laws they swore to uphold.”

There’s no asterisk anywhere that says, “Unless we’re talking about sanctuary cities.” It seems to me that either we’re all governed by the Constitution—or none of us are.