The gloves are off: ‘predatory’ climate deniers are a threat to our children

The gloves are off: ‘predatory’ climate deniers are a threat to our children, by Tim Flannery. (See Joanne Nova’s reply, next post.)

Our media is filled with enthusiastic announcements about new fossil fuel projects, or the unveiling of the latest fossil-fuelled supercar, as if there’s no relationship between such things and climate change.

In Australia, the disconnect among our political leaders on the deadly nature of fossil fuels is particularly breathtaking.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison continues to sing the praises of coal, while members of the government call for subsidies for coal-fired power plants. A few days ago, Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor urged that the nation’s old and polluting coal-fired power plants be allowed to run “at full tilt”. ..

The climate crisis has now grown so severe that the actions of the denialists have turned predatory: they are now an immediate threat to our children. ..


Most of us have figured out that there is something deeply wrong with the carbon dioxide theory of global warming, but not Tim.

Remember Flannery’s prediction in 2006 that the Australian state capital cities would soon run out of water and their dams would never fill again? That Perth would soon become a ghost city? All that money spent on used desal. plants, so at least there were some winners. Here is another Flannery prediction:

By 2100 — just 80 years away — if our trajectory does not change, it is estimated that Earth will be 4 degrees warmer than it was before we began burning fossil fuels.

Sure, from unverified models stuffed with assumptions about how the climate works. Those models have done poorly to date, consistently running hot and completely unable to explain the major temperature fluctuations in the two thousand years before 1800 when the carbon dioxide levels were unchanging.

Even if it was 4 degrees warmer on average, how could that be worse than moving closer to the equator? Winnowing, apparently.

That future Earth may have enough resources to support far fewer people than the 7.6 billion it supports today. British scientist James Lovelock has predicted a future human population of just a billion people. Mass deaths are predicted to result from, among other causes, disease outbreaks, air pollution, malnutrition and starvation, heatwaves, and suicide.

My children, and those of many prominent polluters and climate denialists, will probably live to be part of that grim winnowing — a world that the Alan Joneses and Andrew Bolts of the world have laboured so hard to create.

James Lovelock? Oh well, that settles it. Rebellion is justified:

Not yet a year old, Extinction Rebellion has had an enormous impact. In April it shut down six critical locations in London, overwhelmed the police and justice system with 1,000 arrests, and forced the British government to become the first nation ever to declare a climate emergency.

So unstable is our current societal response that a single young woman, Greta Thunberg, has been able to spark a profoundly powerful global movement. Less than a year ago she went on a one-person school strike. Today school strikes for climate action are a global phenomenon.

The magic retard, whose recitation of the climateer’s talking points has sparked a “profoundly powerful global movement”.

Australian of the Year Tim Flannery is not going to be happy when we he finds out the whole carbon dioxide theory of global warming is based on a technical modelling error made in the 1960s. A whole religion will lose its moorings. The whole topic has become a due-diligence-free power grab that is costing most of us (but not all of us) a great deal of money.

“Climate deniers are immediate threat to our children” — Ranting, Tim Flannery admits his “colossal failure”

“Climate deniers are immediate threat to our children” — Ranting, Tim Flannery admits his “colossal failure”. By Joanne Nova.

Tim Flannery unhinged. What a rant. Apparently people who deny that Earth has a climate are coming to eat his children or something. It must be awful inside his head:

…the climate crisis has now grown so severe that the actions of the denialists have turned predatory: they are now an immediate threat to our children.

After all his predictions went wrong years ago, now he feels like a failure?

No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure.

I say, not at all Tim. You were paid to sell carbon credits and industrial renewables and I’m sure Panasonic are very happy.

Flannery and his institutions may never have been funded by Vestas, GE,  HSBCDeutche Bank, Goldman Sachs, BBVA and Citigroup  or Communist China but they’re happy too. I mean they’d like to be happier still, but Flannery did his best. And a lot of feudal bureaucrats and desalination-plant-owners are also glad Flannery came to forecast the end of rain and scare the heck out of all the little kiddies and state premiers.

But Flannery still thinks that his side’s aim was to reduce carbon dioxide, rather than just get rich or fill a spiritual vacuum. No wonder he’s hysterical. It’s kind of touching how he doesn’t realize his backers, patrons and fans were never serious about carbon reduction — they just wanted a job, the dough, or an invite to dinner parties in the right circles. If any of them cared about the climate, they would have demanded nukes. …

So [Flannery] quotes the Extinction Rebellion Declaration of something which says essentially: Democracy is dead and “We hereby declare the bonds of the social contract to be null and void.”

Yes, indeed, voided perhaps when Flannery has paid back the Australian taxpayer for his past salary plus damages (anyone want to buy a desal plant?)

Woke History Is Making Big Inroads in America’s High Schools

Woke History Is Making Big Inroads in America’s High Schools, by John Murawski.

Like growing numbers of public high school students across the country, many California kids are receiving classroom instruction in how race, class, gender, sexuality and citizenship status are tools of oppression, power and privilege.

They are taught about colonialism, state violence, racism, intergenerational trauma, heteropatriarchy and the common thread that links them: “whiteness.” Students are then graded on how well they apply these concepts in writing assignments, performances and community organizing projects.

At Santa Monica High School, for example, students organize and carry out “a systematized campaign” for social justice that can take the form of a protest, a leaflet, a workshop, play or research project. They demonstrate their mastery of the subject matter by teaching about social justice to middle school students. …

Some conduct a grand jury investigation to determine who was responsible for the genocide of the state’s Native Americans. And one class holds a mock trial to determine which party is most responsible for the deaths of millions of native Tainos: Christopher Columbus, the soldiers, the king and queen of Spain, or the entire European system of colonialism. …

Teachers around the country are already offering ethnic studies classes, units or lessons on their own initiative, citing a growing urgency to confront racism, sexism, homophobia and other entrenched social inequalities. …

We don’t want students to have the option not to take ethnic studies,” said Melina Abdullah, a professor Pan-African Studies at California State University, Los Angeles, and a board member of the national Association for Ethnic Studies. “It is as important as taking a lab science.” …

Ethnic studies programs are already established at many of the nation’s universities and focus on the experiences of people of color: Blacks, Latinos (Hispanics, Chicanos), Native Americans, Asians and Arabs/Muslims. Expanding to the K-12 level is a bold step that has met with some resistance.

Jewish, Armenian, Assyrian, Hellenic and other ethnic groups left out of the proposal are demanding their narratives be included as part of the curriculum. And critics also wonder why many ethnic groups are left out, but the LGBTQ community is included even though it is technically not an ethnicity. …

A number of advocates said that the conceptual starting point of ethnic studies is to “decenter” the dominant cultural perspective: whiteness.

Indoctrination, not education. More anti-white racism. Politics masquerading as education.

Trump’s ‘Islam Hates Us’ Returns: Democrat presidential candidates sacrifice troubling truths for votes — again

Trump’s ‘Islam Hates Us’ Returns: Democrat presidential candidates sacrifice troubling truths for votes — again. By Raymond Ibrahim.

Donald Trump’s infamous assertion “Islam hates us,” which he made over three years ago while campaigning for president, continues to appear in the news. Most recently, Democrat presidential hopefuls Julián Castro and Bernie Sanders cited it in their efforts to court Muslim votes in Houston.

Soon after being introduced by his Muslim campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, Sanders said, “We must speak out when we have a president and an administration who believe — and I quote — that ‘Islam hates us.’”

Here is what Trump said in March 2016: “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”

London

That seems to be the difference between Trump and the Democrats: the latter, in typical head-in-sand fashion—or just to garner votes—reject the “Islamophobic” claim on principle, whereas the president at least acknowledges that there’s a problem, one that “we have to get to the bottom of.”

So let’s do just that — get to the bottom of this “tremendous hate.” For starters, the source of this hate is not in those factors liberals/leftists always cite whenever Muslims lash out (and their actions actually get reported); it’s not a byproduct of “grievances,” foreign or domestic US policies, Israel, or “blasphemous” cartoons.

The hate, rather, is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching — and has been for nearly fourteen centuries. According to the ancient Islamic doctrine of al-wal’a wa al-bara’, or “loyalty and enmity” — which is well grounded in Islamic scriptures, well sponsored by Islamic authorities, and well manifested all throughout Islamic history and contemporary affairs — Muslims must hate and oppose everyone who is not Muslim, including family members. (The importance of this doctrine is such that al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote a 60 page treatise on al-wal’a wa al-bara’ in The Al Qaeda Reader, pp. 63-115.) … Koran 58:22 praises Muslims who fight and kill their own non-Muslim family members …

Islamic protest Sydney 2012

Sydney

If Muslims must hate those closest to them — including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives — simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that Muslims may hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away — such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Islamic world as trying to undermine Islam?

Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You, in Issue 15 of Dabiq, by the Islamic State, page 31.

As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms — yet again — why we hate you and why we fight you.

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah — whether you realize it or not — by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. …

2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted …

3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator. …

4. We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion. …

5. We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth. …

6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.

And from page 80:

 

Sure, this is fundamentalist Islam, and not all Muslims are 100% on board with this, thank goodness. But Islam and Islamic countries have never been able to break away from the control of the fundamentalists for long, to reform and modernize Islam. The Koran was dictated to Mohammad by the Archangel Gabriel, so it cannot be changed. The fundamentalists keep winning, keep controlling. And the penalty for leaving Islam is death.

We don’t like to go on about the threats posed by this immutable, seventh-century totalitarian ideology, but an occasional reminder is pertinent. Especially as the left is currently trying to tell us that Islam is the “religion of peace,” and exhorting us not to be “Islamophobic.” Another terrible chapter in the book of leftist fantasies versus reality.

Is England Still Part of Europe?

Is England Still Part of Europe? By Victor Davis Hanson.

England is an island. Historically, politically, and linguistically, it was never permanently or fully integrated into European culture and traditions.

The story of Britain has mostly been about conflict with France, Germany, or Spain. The preeminence of the Royal Navy, in the defiant spirit of its sea lords, ensured that European dictators from Napoleon to Hitler could never set foot on British soil. As British admiral John Jervis reassured his superiors in 1801 amid rumors of an impending Napoleonic invasion, “I do not say, my lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea.”

With no standing army ready to enforce the king’s say, and a government that had to ask the people nicely for money, Britain developed liberty and Magna Carta.

France produced Napoleon, Italy had Mussolini, and Germany gave the world Hitler. It is difficult to find in British history a comparable dictatorial figure who sought Continental domination.

But even British imperialism was of a different sort than Belgian, French, German, Portuguese, or Spanish colonialism. Former British colonies America, Australia, Canada, India, and New Zealand have long been democratic, while much of Latin America, to take one example, has not until recently.

In World War I, the British lost nearly a million soldiers trying to save France and Belgium. In World War II, England was the only nation to fight the Axis for the entirety of the war (from September 1939 to September 1945), the only Allied power to fight the Axis completely alone (for about a year from mid-1940 to mid-1941), and the only major Allied power to have gone to war without having been directly attacked. (It came to the aid of its ally Poland.)

Historically, Britain has looked more upon the seas and the New World than eastward to Europe. In that transatlantic sense, a Canadian or American typically had more in common with an Englander than did a German or Greek.

Over the last 30 years, the British nearly forgot that fact as they merged into the European Union and pledged to adopt European values in a shared trajectory to supposed utopia.

To the degree that England remained somewhat suspicious of EU continentalism by rejecting the euro and not embracing European socialism, the country thrived. But when Britain followed the German example of open borders, reversed the market reforms of Margaret Thatcher, and adopted the pacifism and energy fantasies of the EU, it stagnated.

Brexit — or join the continental, anti-liberty way?

Johnson’s efforts as the new prime minister ostensibly are to carry out the will of the British people as voiced in 2016, against the wishes of the European Union apparat and most of the British establishment. But after hundreds of years of rugged independence, will Britain finally merge into Europe, or will it retain its singular culture and grow closer to the English-speaking countries it once founded — which are doing better than most of the members of the increasingly regulated and anti-democratic European Union. …

Britain has a last chance to re-embrace the free-market democratic world that it once helped to create — and distance itself from the creeping statism it once opposed.

Williamson Expresses Shock Over How Awful the Left Is

Williamson Expresses Shock Over How Awful the Left Is, by Leah Barkoukis. Most leftists live in a carefully curated cocoon of information sources telling them how wonderful their tribe is, how much better than us. Sometimes reality dawns on one or two of them.

Self-help author and Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson has apparently gotten a healthy dose of reality about what the modern day Left looks like, and as the rest of us all know, it’s not pretty.

Speaking to the New Yorker’s David Remnick on Tuesday, Williamson turned on her fellow Democrats and the media for characterizing her as a “crystal gazing kook” and an anti-vaxxer, both of which she denied.

“I know this sounds naive. I didn’t think the Left was so mean,” she said when asked about how her experience for running for president has been. “I didn’t think the Left lied like this. I thought the Right did that. I thought we were better.”

Yep, they lie to shut you up and discredit you:

Remnick asked her to speak further about what she considered to be unfair treatment.

“Oh, come on, you just mentioned crystal gazing,” she answered. “There is no crystal in my home, David. There’s never been a crystal on stage when I’ve talked. I’ve never told an AIDS patient not to take their medicine. I’ve never told anyone not to take their medicine. I’ve never told anyone their lovelessness created their disease.”

She added: “I’m Jewish, I go to the doctor. This idea that I’m that person.”

hat-tip Charles

Ballot harvesting — How the Democrats are going to steal the US 2020 elections

Ballot harvesting — How the Democrats are going to steal the US 2020 elections, by Jason Chaffetz.

The Heritage Foundation calls it the “tool of choice for vote thieves.” The convenient, innovative, and beloved mail-in ballot has been a source of contention due to its vulnerability to manipulation.

During the 2018 midterms, Democrats in California and a Republican consultant in North Carolina used a process called “ballot harvesting” to collect mail-in ballots for voters. …

In North Carolina, ballot harvesting is illegal. In California, … ballot harvesting was legalized by Democrats in the state legislature. They don’t consider it cheating in that state. It was used to flip seven Republican seats to the Democratic column in 2018.

Democrats have long dismissed claims that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to manipulation, pointing to what they call a dearth of voter fraud convictions. Nonetheless, they could hardly ignore the North Carolina race in which a Republican campaign operative illegally collecting ballots allegedly destroyed as many as a thousand ballots supporting the Democratic candidate.

The process of ballot harvesting should be illegal for very good reason. It violates the chain of custody, exposing the ballot to potential manipulation by campaign operatives or nonprofit political groups. They could harass voters to turn in ballots, “assist” them in filling them out, and potentially “lose” ballots that don’t support the candidate the ballot harvester is paid to help.

The indication that ballot harvesting made the difference in California can be found in the vote proportions. Studies of absentee voters have consistently shown they tend to reflect the population or lean slightly to the right. But when ballot harvesting was deployed in California, we saw late ballots break heavily for Democrats. …

What are the implications of activists with an agenda “helping” voters look up candidates and fill out ballots? How many of those activists are willing to turn in a ballot that doesn’t help their cause? Should we be exposing people’s ballots to that kind of temptation?

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

New York Times Forced to Admit Kavanaugh ‘Victim’ Doesn’t Remember Assault

New York Times Forced to Admit Kavanaugh ‘Victim’ Doesn’t Remember Assault, by John Nolte.

The far-left New York Times has been shamed into adding a humiliating “correction” to its latest and now-debunked smear of Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. …

On Saturday, the failing New York Times published a piece claiming it had found a new Kavanaugh accuser. Here’s the bombshell portion:

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. [Deborah] Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

But what the Times didn’t tell its readers is that the alleged victim of this alleged assault, the very person  into whose alleged hand the alleged penis was allegedly thrust, does not recall anything about the penis incident and does not want to talk to the media.

Does that piece of information not seem somewhat pertinent to the story? And when I say “pertinent,” I of course mean “the story is totally bogus and never should have been published.” …

Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged victim doesn’t recall being an alleged victim.

The “victim” doesn’t remember the assault.

The “victim” doesn’t remember being sexually assaulted.

She doesn’t remember it happening.

And the New York Times not only went ahead and reported the story as credible, the New York Times hid that information from its readers. …

After 36 hours of attempting to deceive the public, the Times grudgingly added the following correction Sunday evening:

Editors’ Note: An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding as assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

The updated story reads like this and even the update is a lie…

(We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier; the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the episode.)

It’s worth pointing out Max Stier is a Democrat operative, a former attorney for the Clintons, and who also refused to talk to the Times.

Finally, when the Times claims in its update that it “corroborated the story” that’s a lie. All the Times did was talk to a couple of people who say Stier told them about a sexual assault that the victim doesn’t even recall happening. That’s not corroboration, that’s “hearsay.”

What comes around…

But…

Since this is the new standard of journalism, I have something to report…

I am deeply ashamed to admit it, but I honestly don’t remember New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet sexually assaulting me.

Here’s my headline:

I Do Not Remember Dean Baquet Sexually Assaulting Me

hat-tip Charles

Swedish Rapper Calls For White People to be Shot

Swedish Rapper Calls For White People to be Shot, by Paul Joseph Watson.

Nigerian-born rap artist Jesse Ekene Nweke Conable called for his fans to “shoot” white people while urging, “Take them as slaves and treat them even worse.” …

The comments were made in a rant posted on a closed Instagram group called Barasvarta (“Blacks only”), according to news outlet Samhällsnytt.

“We, blacks” will “become number one and take over these whites,” said Conable, adding, “Like these whites took us as slaves we should take them as slaves and treat them even worse.”

“We’ll take their bitches and we’ll take their money,” he continued. “To be perfectly honest, we will be the best race ever. We are African warriors, they are not on our level. This is just the beginning, black power.”

Making the shape of a gun with his hand, Conable asserted, “If any white guy or white girl is trying to talk shit about you, shoot them! If they talk shit about your family, shoot them!”

The rapper appears to think he has carte blanche to make violent racist threats against white people, posting a meme that says, “You cannot be racist if you are not white.” …

Conable, who emigrated to Sweden in 2008 and now has citizenship, has a combined total of 280,000 subscribers on YouTube.

How progressive! As Lenin said, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Sweden is a progressive paradise.

The white Swedes fancy themselves a humanitarian superpower, and they’re right! They will thoroughly deserve their Darwin Award.

NRA sues San Francisco over terrorist declaration

NRA sues San Francisco over terrorist declaration, by Lisa Pane.

The National Rifle Association sued San Francisco on Monday over the city’s recent declaration that the gun-rights lobby is a “domestic terrorist organization.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses city officials of violating the gun lobby’s free speech rights for political reasons and says the city is seeking to blacklist anyone associated with the NRA. It asks the court to step in “to instruct elected officials that freedom of speech means you cannot silence or punish those with whom you disagree.”

Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization,” contending the NRA spreads propaganda that seeks to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.

The left can be sued, for falsely calling people nasty names? Who knew? Can we all sue them?

A Good Word for Christianity

A Good Word for Christianity, by David Daintree.

It’s getting harder to be a Christian, especially if you’re a white male. Everybody admires spirituality if it’s Buddhist, Muslim, indigenous or just plain save-the-planet Green. But Christian spirituality is viewed with distaste …

Jesus was a political revolutionary. By saying that all men are equal in the eyes of the Lord, and that this life is but a forerunner or test before an everlasting life in the next world and you will be judged on it, he set in motion changes that transformed the world:

There is absolutely no evidence that anybody before St Paul had ever said anything like ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’

In other words, the rich and powerful do not get to ride roughshod over everyone and behave abominably, as was the practice in those times. Might does not make right. There is more to life than doing whatever pleases you in this life, and there are consequences.

Preferential option for the poor, public hospitals, pensions, free education, justice for prisoners and minorities, even feminism itself, and socialism too — all these things have taken root readily and abundantly in Christian societies. The fight against slavery (still being waged today) continues to be led by Christians. Amnesty International and the Red Cross were Christian foundations.

We now live in what many call a ‘post-Christian world’, and many now claim that these social goods have nothing to do with Christianity, or even that they took place in spite of Christianity. That amounts to a scandalous misreading of history. A Christian world view was fertile ground for the emergence of great and just social changes and the evidence for it is overwhelming. We can argue that socialism and feminism, for example, may have sometimes gone too far, but generous impulses lay at their roots.

Many of these reforms and developments took a long time to emerge. Too long. In every society there is corruption and self-interest and the fight against slavery, for example, was a protracted and terrible one.

But Christianity is the white religion. Anti-white racism took hold once the left switched from championing the working class to exploiting identity politics to gain power. What started as prejudice and promises of privileges for non-white-male identity groups has steadily blossomed into anti-white racism. The left used to demonize the rich, but now they increasingly demonize whites.

In addition, from the time of Marx the left has always viewed Christianity as their main enemy. Along with the family, Christianity stands in the way of their project to remake humanity and society, to sweep away all that is right and replace it with their own model Soviet man. Christianity represents reality — social and spiritual anyway, if not supernatural — that impedes the leftist fantasies. To say nothing of the sexual mores those on the left might prefer.

That’s a point of view that is mostly lost nowadays. The left control the media. They are hardly going to spell it out for you, are they?

Trump’s starting to win big on controlling the southern border

Trump’s starting to win big on controlling the southern border, by Jonathon Tobin.

To listen to most Democrats, they’ve got President Trump on the run when it comes to immigration.

The “big beautiful” wall he promised to build along the border with Mexico hasn’t gone up, and House Democrats will no longer fund even the border-security projects they supported in the past. Federal courts have also been preventing Team Trump from pushing through its efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants, let alone to attempt to fix a broken asylum system gamed by economic migrants from Central America who don’t fit the traditional definition of refugees fleeing for their lives.

But anyone who believes sanctuary-movement backers and Dems seeking to decriminalize illegal immigration are beating the president needs a reality check.

Courts make policy:

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled to permit the administration to go on refusing to accept applications for asylum from migrants who have passed through another country without being denied asylum there, while a case challenging this common-sense policy works its way through the courts.

That comes on the heels of the court’s decision in July to allow Trump to use money from the defense budget to build the border wall. It was yet another significant victory for the administration’s initiatives and a sign that the left’s judicial guerrilla war that had been stymieing the president is starting to crumble.

Expect liberal efforts to prevent Trump from overturning President Barack Obama’s executive orders that effectively granted amnesty to millions of illegals to meet the same fate.

Trump’s threats to Mexico on tariffs got results, and didn’t need approval from judges:

Fact is, despite the beating Trump has continued to take from the media about government tactics aimed at stemming the surge of illegal immigrants over the southern border, his policies have started to show signs of success.

While no one expects Mexico to pay for Trump’s wall, it is doing something more important: using its resources to stop its people from crossing over into the United States illegally. It has, for example, reinforced security on its southern border and set up checkpoints on highways leading north, dispatching 21,600 police and troops across the nation in the effort. …

The message has also gotten through to those seeking to come to the United States illegally. Mexican officials have said there has been a “significant decrease” in the number of Central Americans entering their country this year for the purpose of illegally immigrating to the United States.

The flow of new Democrat voters is somewhat reduced from the high under Obama:

It makes sense. The campaign by Obama and other Democrats to grant amnesty and a wide array of benefits to illegal immigrants fueled the surge across the border, with new migrants seeking the same lenient treatment. That led to the crisis in which federal resources were overwhelmed by the sheer number of asylum-seekers, prompting much grandstanding and crocodile tears from the left.

Trump’s critics have libelously denounced his attempts to enforce the law — and restore order at the border — as reminiscent of the Nazis and evidence of racism. Yet those efforts seem to be having the intended effect on those contemplating coming here without permission.