Their Enemy is Trump

They have met the enemy  and the enemy is Trump. The weak-willed weak-kneed weak-sisters of the European Union are up in arms. They are not up in arms about Islamist terrorism. They are not arming to defend themselves against enemies near and far. They are not outraged at the Islamist invasion that is transforming their countries into shariah-compliant terror zones. Not at all. They have declared war against Trump.

Joining them in this effort is the overly Botoxed former Secretary of State and lackey to Iran, John Kerry. All members of the weak Obama administration, an administration that called itself courageous for refusing to fight Islamist terrorism, denounced Donald Trump for renouncing the Paris climate accord. And did so in apocalyptic and hyperbolic terms. When it comes to rhetoric they are tougher than tough.

One German newspaper headlined: Trump to Earth: Fuck You. Emmanuel Macron, the boy wonder president of France, apparently peeved that his efforts to persuade Trump to stay in the treaty were rebuffed intoned, in English: Make the Planet Great Again. We are no longer citizens of the world. We are now supposed to belong to the planet. Can you spot the incoherent thinking here?

If you want to show how tough you are without doing any real fighting, you declare war against the climate. There, that shows that you are really, really tough.

And then there are the serious thinkers who believe that Trump abrogated American leadership in world forums. One recalls that while Europe’s finest were crying in their tea and coffee, Trump was in Saudi Arabia helping to forge an alliance of Sunni Arab nations to fight Islamist terrorism. Could it be that the weak sisters of Europe were upset that they were excluded, that their presence was unimportant? Surely, they were more than torqued that the world had discovered that they are more show than substance.

The tough talking Europeans are militarily depleted. They are spending their money making everyone feel good. There’s nothing left to defend themselves. All things considered they have good reason to remain on good terms with the Trump administration. That they are not doing so tells us that they are so weak that they must resort to macho posturing.

As for the facts of the case, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning on European military preparedness:

Soldiers in Germany’s Light Infantry Battalion 413 near the Baltic Sea coast complained last year that they didn’t have enough sniper rifles or antitank weapons or the right kind of vehicles.

During exercises, they told a parliamentary ombudsman, their unit didn’t have the munitions to simulate battle. Instead, they were told to imagine the bangs.

Across Europe, similar shortfalls riddle land, sea, air and cyber forces following years of defense cutbacks….

Europeans have tried for decades to more efficiently build military hardware and organize troops. That effort is littered with failures, delays and compromises. Today European allies spend roughly half as much as the U.S. on defense yet have less than one-sixth of its combat power, European officials acknowledge…

Stories of shortages abound in Europe. France recently sent only five tanks and 300 troops to a new NATO force in the Baltic states partly because French deployments in Africa, Syria and the streets of Paris have overtaxed its military, according to allied officials.

Britain’s storied Royal Navy is without a single aircraft carrier while it awaits the delivery of two carriers. When the HMS Queen Elizabeth sets sail in 2021, it may initially carry U.S. Marine Corps F-35B fighter planes while Britain builds up its own fleet. The U.K. has also placed its submarine-hunting crews with allies because it lacks planes and awaits new surveillance aircraft.

But, they are hard at working fight climate change. Besides, the defense ministers of most European nations are women. That will surely terrify any potential opponent.

In the meantime, the German press, to take one example, is not telling its citizens about the wave of honor killings, committed by Muslim refugees, either new refugees or long-term residents who somehow failed to adopt German cultural values.

Soeren Kern reports for The Gatestone Institute:

The trial of a Kurdish man who tied one of his three wives to the back of a car and dragged her through the streets of a town in Lower Saxony has drawn attention to an outbreak of Muslim honor violence in Germany.

Honor violence — ranging from emotional abuse to physical and sexual violence to murder — is usually carried out by male family members against female family members who are perceived to have brought shame upon a family or clan.

Offenses include refusing to agree to an arranged marriage, entering into a relationship with a non-Muslim or someone not approved by the family, refusing to stay in an abusive marriage or living an excessively Western lifestyle. In practice, however, the lines between crimes of honor and crimes of passion are often blurred and any challenge to male authority can elicit retribution, which is sometimes staggeringly brutal.

As you might imagine, German feminists have nothing to say about this. They are too busy fighting against Trump.

Kern also reports the statistics, such as they are:

In March 2011, the Max Planck Institute published a landmark study on honor killings. The study analyzed all such crimes known to have occurred in Germany between 1996 and 2005. The report found that there were two honor killings in 1998 and 12 in 2004. By 2016, however, the number had jumped to more than 60, an increase of 400%, according to the website Ehrenmord.

The actual number of honor crimes presumably is much higher. Increased censorship by the police and the media, aimed at stemming anti-immigration sentiments, makes it impossible to know the names and national origins of many victims or perpetrators, or the true circumstances surrounding many murders, which often appear to be honor killings but are downplayed as "domestic disputes" (Familienangelegenheiten).

2017 is nevertheless on track to be a record year for honor violence in Germany; in the first five months of this year, there have been at least 30 honor killings….

Coupled with the outrage at Donald Trump’s refusal to honor an agreement that was not binding anyway—Huh?—was the reaction to the Manchester suicide bombing and other terrorist actions.

Heather Mac Donald has the story in City Journal (via Maggie's Farm):

Liberal ideology conceives of “safe spaces” in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a “safe space” in Britain’s Manchester Arena on May 22, when 22-year-old terrorist Salman Abedi detonated his nail- and screw-filled suicide bomb after a concert by teen idol Ariana Grande. What was the “progressive” answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) 

Islamic terrorists in Europe have moonlighted as crooks, engaging in drug dealing, robberies, vandalism, and theft. The U.S. should have zero tolerance for any criminal activity committed by aliens: break the criminal law and you’re out of here. Deporting alien criminals is both an anti-crime and an anti-terrorism strategy. Yet mayors and police chiefs in sanctuary jurisdictions across the country continue to release alien criminals back into the community from jail in defiance of requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold the criminals briefly for removal proceedings.  The New York Police Department defied every ICE detainer request it received in the first four months of 2017, instead releasing 179 alien criminals back into the streets, according to the New York Post.

When it comes to Trump, they have launched a domestic insurgency, a Resistance. When it comes to Trump, anything goes, even decapitating an effigy of the president. When it comes to defending the climate against Trump, they take off the gloves and go to war.

When it comes to Islamist terrorism they cower in the corner and chant kumbaya.

Mac Donald has their number:

So what does the progressive and liberal bloc offer? Treacly bromides, combined with fatalism about the necessity of adjusting to future attacks. 

Apparently, we have every right to fly into a rage about Donald Trump. Toward Islamist terrorists we must show compassion and forbearance.

Mac Donald continues:

No, the terrorists will have failed if they can no longer slaughter children. They don’t care if a terror attack is met with candlelight vigils; they care if border restrictions and law enforcement make it impossible to destroy lives.

We fight them with candlelight vigils… without any concern for the pollution caused by so many burning candles. Anyway, the pusillanimous editorial boards have persuaded us that if we get angry and close our borders, the terrorists will have won. Apparently, it has never crossed their minds that the terrorists want submission and that they are acting submissively. And, of course, the terrorists want to send an invading army of Muslim immigrants into Western nations, to destroy them from within. Newspaper editorial boards and many leftist judges are totally on board with that program.

In Mac Donald’s words:

The flip side of the Post’s “terrorists will have failed if we light candles” conceit is the ubiquitous meme that the “terrorists will have won” if we modify our intelligence strategies or immigration policies in any way. The New York Times editorialized after the Manchester bombing: “It is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain—and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West—to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.”

Since Mac Donald is an authoritative voice when it comes to the leftist assault on the police, on the effort to blame the police for minority crimes, she is well placed to compare the New York Times’ attitude toward terrorist with its attitude toward the police:

The contrast between the Times’s attitude toward domestic policing and its attitude toward Islamic terrorism is striking. When it comes to terrorism, the public should “recognize that more attacks will very likely occur, despite our best defenses,” the Times says. It is also “critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized.” If the Times were talking about police shootings of black males, it would never counsel acceptance of the alleged inevitability of more shootings. As for not stigmatizing an entire group for the actions of a few, when it comes to the police, there has been no shriller a stigmatizer than the Times. It has crusaded against cops in the most inflammatory terms, accusing the police of systemic bias against blacks. Unlike a terrorist, an officer almost never initiates an interaction with a civilian with the intention to kill, unless he is confronting a suspect who poses a deadly threat. True, a few individual officers have made horribly wrong judgments about a suspect’s threat level. But those misjudgments do not occur out of homicidal animus. Regarding Islamic terrorism, the Times intones that “Understanding is critical” and inveighs against “whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds.” The Times has never tried to “understand” why officers are more likely to use force in high-crime, gang-ridden areas or why officers try to restore order there (answer: because the law-abiding residents of those anarchic neighborhoods beg them to do so).

They have met the enemy and the enemy is white police officers… and, by the way, Donald Trump.