Megyn Kelly gets away with a lot of antics, so why not this one at the debate in Des Moines, Iowa? There, Kelly referred to Donald Trump as “the elephant not in the room,” and asked Sen. Ted Cruz: “What message do you think Trump’s absence sends to the voters of Iowa?”
Kelly’s question is a leading question, not a probative question, because the question suggests the answer. Hers is a bad-faith question. I wish Donald Trump’s campaign had the analytical wherewithal to point out Kelly’s despicable antics.
And you know that when CNN approvingly describes (on “Outfront,” 1/29) a Fox News anchor as a consummate professional “staying above the fray”—said anchor is likely everything but. What the Left likes about the badly behaved and unprofessional Kelly, as chronicled in the more meaty version of “The Me Myself and I Megyn Kelly Production,” is that she reflects their side.
“If we ban Muslim immigration, the terrorists will have won” assert politicians from Barack Obama to Rand Paul. None is your friend.
“The terrorists win if Americans don’t do as the politicians say” is reverse psychology and cliché rolled into one. The prez keeps saying, “Dare do x, y or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.” Or, “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.”
First, how do these asses know what ISIS wants? Or, are Barack Obama and Sen. Paul simply ass-uming they know? It is more likely the two politicians are using reverse psychology to get Americans to comply with their own wishes.
In any event, if ISIS wants you, America, to do what in your estimation is best for you–perhaps ISIS is right and the president is wrong. Perhaps ISIS is right and Rand Paul is wrong.
So, Sen. Paul; President Obama, we’ll take that long moratorium on Muslim immigration. It’s a winner for Americans. If ISIS approves, too, so be it. ISIS is happy; we are happy; everybody is happy; we all win.
The quality of argument one can expect from the Left, which dominates campuses, is as follows: When confronted about the fact that 99 percent of colleges faculty are left-liberals, the reply from the Left is that to get into college you need to be smart and libertarians, classical liberals, conservatives and independents are simply not as smart as the Left. The argument is distilled by King’s College Politics Professor David Corbin as, “You’re stupid because you’re not like me.”
Paul Ryan is no Ted Cruz. Ryan’s illogical statements already grate. On Fox News, the other day, Paul Ryan disavowed a religious test in accepting refugees. We believe in religious freedom, he said, hence a preference for Christians over Muslims is “not who we are.” (I dissect the “not who we are” cudgel in tomorrow’s WND column.)
Wait a sec, Mr. Ryan, the so-called right to immigrate here irrespective of religion is not the same thing as the right of religious freedom. From the fact that Americans have a constitutional right to religious freedom, it doesn’t flow that refugees from all faiths must be welcome.
As reported by Breitbart.com, demographic change in the US is entirely the product of legal admissions–”it is a formal policy of the federal government adopted by Congress.” Thus,
Another major source of Middle Eastern immigration into the United States is done through our nation’s refugee program. Every year the United Stated admits 70,000 asylees and refugees. Arabic is the most common language spoken by refugees, and 91.4 percent of refugees from the Middle East are on food stamps.
In the same Fox News exchange, it transpired that Ryan loves our refugee laws—they are important legislation, he said on that occasion. But why? Like most positive law, US refugee law is written by and for special interests, starting with one of the most corrupt UN agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Besides who approved these refugee laws? Likely fewer than 535 law makers legislating on behalf of 323 million people who have to live with the law’s consequences.