Terrorist attack in Kashmir

The New Neo Posted on by

The report:

At least 26 people were killed and 17 others wounded when unidentified gunmen opened fire on a group of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Tuesday, the worst assault in years targeting civilians in the restive region, which is claimed by both India and Pakistan.

India describes militancy in Kashmir as Pakistan-backed terrorism. Pakistan denies the allegation, and many Kashmiris consider the militants to be part of a home-grown freedom struggle.

It may seem petty of me, in the face of such carnage, to carp about the words used. But words matter in helping to form perceptions. So when “gunmen” fire on tourists it is by definition terrorism, whatever their goals and whatever their complaints.

India’s reaction:

India on Wednesday closed a border crossing, suspended a water-sharing treaty and downgraded diplomatic ties with rival Pakistan, blaming its neighbor for a militant attack the previous day that killed 26 people in the Indian-held portion of Kashmir.

A terrorist attack.

Attacking tourists almost certainly has the goal of hurting the region economically:

New Delhi has vigorously pushed tourism, and the region has drawn millions of visitors to its Himalayan foothills. Indian officials have claimed that as a sign of normalcy returning, despite the presence of ubiquitous security checkpoints, armored vehicles and patrolling soldiers. Until Tuesday, tourists were not targeted.

Attacking tourists is the modus operandi of Islamist jihadi groups in some mideastern countries – such as, for example, the Luxor attack in Egypt in 1997:

In the mid-morning of 17 November, six gunmen killed 58 foreign nationals and four Egyptians. The assailants were armed with knives and automatic firearms and disguised as members of the security forces. … With the tourists trapped inside the temple, the killing went on systematically for 45 minutes, during which many bodies, especially of women, were mutilated with machetes. The body of an elderly Japanese man was also found mutilated. A leaflet was discovered stuffed into his body that read “no to tourists in Egypt” and was signed “Omar Abdul Rahman’s Squadron of Havoc and Destruction—the Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Group”. …

The tourist industry in Egypt, and particularly in Luxor, was seriously affected by the resultant slump in visitors and remained depressed until sinking even lower with the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the 2005 Sharm El Sheikh bombings, and the 2006 Dahab bombings.

The massacre marked a decisive drop in terrorists’ fortunes in Egypt by turning public opinion overwhelmingly against them

RIP.

Due process for illegal aliens: how far does it go?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is a huge question and I’m not going to be dealing with it in great depth at the moment. I do plan to write more on it in the future, but for now I’ll alert you to an article Jonathan Turley wrote on the subject in 2018 during Trump’s first term.

I suggest you read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

Under current procedures, undocumented persons are dealt with under either §1225(b)(1) or §1225(b)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) allows for deportations for those who enter through fraud, misrepresentation, or without valid documentation. Under the first provision, deportation can be ordered by ICE officials “without further hearing or review” under an expedited removal process. §1225(b)(1)(A)(i). If Trump were speaking of that group, he would be correct so long as there is not an asylum claim. There can be a return without a hearing or judge. Only about 15 percent of undocumented persons have hearings and the Obama Administration aggressively pursued expedited deportations without hearings. However, if an alien “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution,” the ICE officials must make a threshold determination if the claims is credible, and, if it is credible, “the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).

Other federal law mandate specific protections. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 it is mandated that “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government,” and “the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Government …” …

There is clearly an ability for the Trump Administration to both shift to a criminal enforcement policy and to expedite deportations. To that end, Congress is moving to add judges and resources to the border. However, the blanket call for deportations without due process would be difficult to square with this prior authority. It is also difficult to square with our values as a nation for those with a legitimate fear for their lives and a history of persecution in their nations of origin.

That’s why, this time, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act.

The problem is clear. In recent years the left got very clever, and illegal aliens availed themselves of the information the left provided: it became common knowledge that if an illegal alien claimed he or she needed asylum, that claim must be heard and there were so many illegal aliens coming over that effectively it would mean it would take many years for the claim to be heard. In the meantime, there were plenty of benefits to be had here.

The Trump administration is dealing with a situation now that I don’t think these laws ever envisioned. I think the time is ripe for a new approach that is more in line with the reality that enforcing these laws means the US effectively has no borders.

How the Democrats got us here

The New Neo Posted on by

At some point during the 20th century in America, racism became the biggest sin or at least one of them. This may have occurred during the 1960s, to the best of my recollection. But at any rate it occurred – and the Democrats, who had previously been upholding and institutionalizing racism (especially in the South) managed to pin the “racist” label on the GOP. How that occurred is a long story, but the gist of it can be found here.

Once that was done, by the time Obama campaigned for president he was escalating into what I called “playing the pre-emptive race card” (I describe it in this post, with links there to earlier posts of mine). Obama specialized in accusations of racism against the GOP opposition before any had occurred, and also of redefining all criticism of himself or his policies as racist. That seemed a real turning point to me.

Once it became racist to criticize him in any way, the idea spread that criticizing any black Democrat was racist. Strangely, that “racist” accusation didn’t apply when Democrats criticized black people on the right, because by definition those conservative Republicans were allying themselves with racists and were therefore race traitors and fair game.

Once all of that was established, when the Tea Party movement – which had zero to do with racism – came into being, it was also labeled racist.

As presidential candidate in 2015 Trump was immediately labeled racist , and MAGA hats were considered the equivalents of swastikas soon after. His “rapists” remarks were made a big deal of (see this as well as this), and then of course there was the twisting of his Charlottesville remarks into support for white supremacists. Once it was established that Trump and MAGA were Hitler and the Nazis, it became necessary to oppose everything he did. That opposition immediately established a person as virtuous, and so Democrats moved further and further into disapproving of commonsense popular policies and allowed – just to take one example – cities to burn in 2020, and biological men to play in women’s sports.

With Trump’s second term that dynamic has become even more apparent, if such a thing is possible. Here’s an article about that:

Politics is a game of numbers, and in a democracy, the most effective way to win is to align yourself with the majority. That’s where 80/20 issues come in—those political fights where 80% of Americans agree on one side, while only 20% back the other. The party that stakes out the 80% position secures a commanding political advantage, while the party clinging to the unpopular 20% is left flailing.

For the past decade, Republicans have increasingly found themselves on the winning side of 80/20 issues, while Democrats, blinded by ideological purity and activist pressure, have dug in on losing ground. This dynamic is shaping electoral outcomes, pushing independents toward the GOP, and forcing Democrats into an ever-smaller corner of American political life.

That’s it for the moment, anyway; I will never discount the possibility of its reversing itself through missteps on the right and/or the workings of the huge pro-left propaganda machine that is the MSM.

And periodically, Trump gives them ammunition, at least rhetorically. For example, he did that just the other day with his remarks about deporting “homegrown” criminals to a place like El Salvador. Was he referring to citizens when he used the somewhat ambiguous term “homegrown”? Or was he referring perhaps to non-citizens who were nevertheless raised here, as opposed to recent arrivals? Every article I’ve read about his remarks criticizes them using the assumption that he meant citizens – which, by the way, is an understandable assumption. But what did he actually say?

This is the sort of thing I found, which really doesn’t explain at all. He also says he’ll follow the law and is looking into it:

What’s going on here? Is he joking? Trolling? Serious? Is it about citizens? I haven’t yet seen a clear explanation from the White House, which seems to me to give the left a golden opportunity to criticize him on solid grounds. It seems like an unforced error to me.

And then there’s that American citizen detained by ICE

The New Neo Posted on by

Another story championed by the left and anti-Trump forces turns out to be not what it seemed – although the propaganda has already probably made its mark.

Here’s how the original story went:

As the original reporting went, Jose Hermosillo was wrongfully arrested in Albuquerque, NM, and held for over a week despite telling ICE officials that he was an American. It wasn’t until his family showed up with a birth certificate and a Social Security card that he was released.

Seems like an obvious violation. But here’s the rest of the story:

Except it turns out that Hermosillo not only told immigration authorities he wasn’t an American citizen, but he even concocted an entire story about crossing the border illegally to find work in the United States. Why did he do that? I have no idea. Maybe he’s got mental issues. Maybe he was doing something he wasn’t supposed to be doing and thought posing as an illegal immigrant was the better option.

Whatever the reason, given what we’ve learned, it seems patently absurd to continue to blame ICE and the administration for this when this guy left them no choice by lying to them. Were they supposed to ascertain his real history through some sort of telepathy?

Or perhaps he’s a leftist who lied in order to make the government look bad.

I have no idea, but it’s very very strange.

More:

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary, DHS, wrote on X, “On “On April 8, Hermosillo approached Border Patrol in Tucson and stated he had entered the US illegally through Nogales. He said he wanted to turn himself in and completed a sworn statement identifying as a Mexican citizen who had entered unlawfully.

McLaughlin added, “He was processed and appeared in court on April 11. Afterward, he was held by the US marshals in Florence, Arizona. A few days later, his family presented documents showing US citizenship. The charges were dismissed, and he was released to his family.”

The teenager’s arrest, therefore, was as a result of “his own actions and statements,” she asserted.”

And yet how many people will end up having seen the original story and not the addition/correction?

J. D. Vance and family visit India

The New Neo Posted on by

With all the more pressing news it’s easy to miss the fact that VP Vance and his family are in India on an official visit. Usha Vance is of course of Indian ethnicity and so it was especially adorable (and not even “cultural appropriation”) when their three children wore Indian or Indian-inspired dress.

Funny bit with their eldest son trying to find his mom’s hand:

“Religious freedom” in China: an oxymoron

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “TR” today observed:

China’s Government has just outlawed foreigners, aka people who aren’t from China- from doing missionary works (inside China).

That includes missionaries of: the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, and the Hindu religion, + all other religions.

The Chinese government doesn’t trust [any religion], or [any group], that is not approved by, or controlled by, the Chinese govt..

If you aren’t a Chinese citizen, + maybe even if you are one, you CAN’T talk to people about: your religious beliefs, your church, your religious group, your religion, or how people can join a religion.

If you do any of those things, China’s govt. might arrest you for, in its mind, [being a danger to China, + the Chinese govt..]

I don’t use this term often, but- these are 100%: Nazi party tactics, [Nazi police tactics], Third Reich tactics, totally oppressive tactics, and bad tactics, that are being used by China’s government.

China’s government doesn’t trust anyone that it can’t control.

In my opinion, these things are human rights, and all people should be given + guaranteed these rights, because they are [their] rights …

TR is referring to this recent news:

China has officially outlawed foreign missionaries from sharing their faith in the country without pre-state approval.

It will come into effect from 1st May, marking a further tightening of restrictions by the ruling Chinese Communist Party on those who operate outside the state-controlled churches.

Christianity is not banned in China. It is estimated that there are between 70 to 100 million believers amongst the country’s 1.4bn people. …

Authorities now require all religious groups to register with the state and limit their activities to government-approved locations, making independent evangelism nearly impossible.

Under President Xi Jinping there has been a ‘sinicization of religion’ – a term which seeks to make religious faith adhere to Chinese socialist values and culture.

To me, the issue isn’t about missionaries from foreign countries practicing in China. Any country has the right to ban or regulate foreign visitors who come into that country. The issue is actually religious freedom in general in China, which is highly restricted even if no foreigners are involved. And that issue is a subset of another issue: liberty in China, which exists barely if at all.

The “sinicization of religion” reminds me somewhat of something I learned in school – which is that the periodic conquerors of China in ancient eras found that, over time, it was they who became Chinese rather than the Chinese becoming more like them. At this point, although China is not exactly Communist (although it’s run by the Communist Party, it describes itself as socialist), it retains enormous elements of totalitarian control over its population, and that includes over religion.

If you want to learn more about China’s religious policies, see this from October of 2023. Here’s an excerpt:

Earlier this year, China issued new rules on religious activity that tighten oversight of clergy and congregations.

The rules are part of a long-standing strategy by the Chinese government to align religion with communism and ensure loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which espouses and promotes atheism.

So that’s the overview. A few details:

… [T]he government officially recognizes five religions: Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Daoism (also called Taoism). But authorities closely police religious activity. China has ranked among the world’s most restrictive governments every year since Pew Research Center began tracking restrictions on religion in 2007. …

China is pursuing a policy of “Sinicization” that requires religious groups to align their doctrines, customs and morality with Chinese culture. …

China’s restrictive policies toward Muslims – particularly Uyghurs in Xinjiang province – have been documented widely over the past decade. Human rights groups accuse China of subjecting Uyghurs to mass internment, surveillance and torture. …

Christians are allowed to worship in “official churches” registered with supervisory government agencies responsible for Protestantism and Catholicism. However, many Christians refuse this oversight and worship in underground churches.

Since Xi came to power in 2013, the government has banned evangelization online, tightened control over Christian activities outside of registered venues, and shut down churches that refuse to register. Authorities have also arrested prominent church leaders and some Christians reportedly have been held in internment camps. …

China treats Buddhism – particularly Han Buddhism, the most widespread branch in the country – more leniently than Christianity or Islam. …

Religious activity that falls outside of the five officially recognized religions and does not meet the government’s approval as a form of cultural heritage is often categorized by authorities as “superstition” or “evil cult.” …

Children under 18 are constitutionally prohibited from having any formal religious affiliation in China. There is also a ban on religious education, including Sunday schools, religious summer camps and other forms of youth religious groups. Schools focus on promoting non-religion and atheism, and many children join CCP-affiliated youth groups, where they must pledge commitment to atheism.

I think it’s pretty clear that the Chinese leaders want to stamp out religion and/or make it conform strictly to their party line.

[NOTE: And what of Jews? Yes, there are indeed Jews in China, and although their numbers are minuscule they have a lengthy history there. Judaism – unlike Christianity and Islam – is a non-proselytizing religion. But it nevertheless is being suppressed by the Chinese authorities:

Kaifeng’s Jewish community has reported increasing suppression by the authorities since 2015, reversing the modest revival it experienced in the 1990s. The observance of public religious services and the celebration of religious festivals like Passover and Sukkot have been prohibited, and Jewish community groups have been shut down. Signs have been removed from the Kaifeng Synagogue, a historical site located on Teaching the Torah Lane that is now under strict surveillance.

A small number of Chinese Jews have succeeded in making aliyah and immigrating to Israel with the help of private organisations such as Shavei Israel.

Antisemitism in the People’s Republic of China is mostly a 21st-century phenomenon and it is complicated by the fact that there is little ground for antisemitism in China in historical sources. In the 2020s, antisemitic conspiracy theories in China began to spread and intensify. While there is not a large Jewish diaspora in China, much of the antisemitism come from Chinese nationalists and anti-Israel leftists, as part of a reaction against supposed foreign encirclement and influence. Some Chinese people believe in antisemitic tropes that Jews secretly rule the world. Academics have also noted the spread of philosemitism, which depicts Jews as naturally intelligent and financially savvy, also gained traction in light of the Chinese economic reform.

RIP Pope Francis

The New Neo Posted on by

Pope Francis died early this morning, reportedly of a stroke and related heart problems. At 88 and in recent poor health, it nevertheless was a relatively sudden death. He was the first Jesuit pope, and was from Argentina and had held the position for twelve years. An excerpt:

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, shared with Fox News Digital, “Catholics around the globe are mourning the death of Pope Francis. He touched millions of the faithful, including non-Catholics and non-believers. When Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio assumed the role of Pope Francis, his down-to-earth style captured the plaudits of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It was his unscripted, and often spontaneous, manner of speaking that made him so authentic and appealing.”

I suppose that’s one way to look at it. As a non-Catholic and non-Christian, I can’t say I followed his papacy with great care except to note that it was my distinct impression that he was a leftist. I’ll quote John Hinderaker of Powerline on the subject:

Francis seemed to me to be a slave to left-wing fashion. His views on gender were trendy but in no way Biblical. His hostility to free enterprise was retrograde, and damaging to the extent it had any influence. And his constant advocacy for unrestrained illegal immigration did harm, by shoring up regimes and policies that were horrifically destructive.

So, now what? Your guess is as good as mine. Actually, your guess may be better than mine. For what it’s worth, though, here’s mine: his successor will also lean left although not as heavily. If number of Catholics in the population is any guide (and it’s probably not), the next pope may be from Latin America as well. Africa and Europe are second in terms of numbers, although in Africa the group is growing and in Europe it’s shrinking.

Non-shaggy dog stories of the heartwarming variety

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a dog story to brighten your day. Let’s hear it for Buford the rancher’s dog:

A huge search operation was launched when the [2-year-old] boy disappeared from his home in Seligman, Arizona, about 100 miles south of Grand Canyon National Park …

The sheriff’s office said that more than 40 rescuers, including Department of Public Safety rangers, joined the search, and a DPS helicopter spotted two mountain lions in the area.

But 16 hours after he went missing, rancher Scotty Dunton found him on his land 7 miles away. The boy was safe and well and had apparently been led to his property by the rancher’s dog, Buford.

“I got in my truck to go to town and I see Buford walking down the side of the fence with a little blond kid with him,” Dunton told NBC affiliate KPNX of Phoenix. “I had heard about the missing child this morning, so I knew it was him.” …

“[The child] went through some rough country, it’s all mountains and canyons and boulder piles, and it’s rough for adults, let alone for 2-year-old kids,” Dunton said. “He did a remarkable job to go 7 miles like he did.” …

Dunton said of Buford, “He loves kids, and I imagine he wouldn’t leave him once he’d found him.”

And hat tip for commenter “sdferr” on this one:

A dog abducted from Kibbutz Nir Oz during Hamas’s October 7 onslaught was found in southern Gaza last week by Israeli ground forces.

Billy belongs to Rachel Dancyg, the divorcee of Alex Dancyg who was taken hostage and killed in captivity. Rachel’s brother Itzik Elgarat was also abducted from the kibbutz and murdered in Gaza.

Aviad Shapira, a reservist who has served more than 300 days in Gaza since the start of the war, told Channel 12 that Billy ran into his arms when his unit was operating in Rafah. He proceeded to take care of the dog for four days and insisted that he be allowed to take her back with him to Israel.

The dog – a real cutie; see photos at the link – had a microchip that allowed it to be traced to its owner. Not only is the story heartwarming, but interesting because the Hamas terrorists killed many Israeli dogs during October 7 but not this one (go to that link I just gave for some heartbreaking stories of the dogs who were killed on October 7).

I have long had a fondness for Cavalier King Charles spaniels.

And then there’s Mary Queen of Scots’ small dog – perhaps a spaniel or terrier – who accompanied her to the very end:

Mary was taken prisoner in England in 1568, and was held for 19 years. She was allowed to keep dogs throughout her captivity.

One eyewitness account tells of her tiny dog that had hidden within the folds of her skirt on the day of her execution. Of the event, Robert Wingfield wrote:

“Then one of the executioners, pulling off part of her dress, espied her little dog, which was under her clothes, which could not be gotten forth but by force, and afterwards would not depart from her dead corpse, but came and laid between her head and shoulders (a thing diligently noted:) the dog being imbrued with her blood, was carried away and washed, as all things else were that had any blood, except those things that were burned.”

Wingfield’s account does not clarify the color or type of dog that wouldn’t leave Mary’s side. And many tales have grown up around this little detail of Mary’s death. Some had said it was a white dog, others say it was black. Some say it was a Skye Terrier. Although some professional dog breeders claim that the Skye Terrier didn’t come into existence until the 19th century, leaving people to believe that perhaps it was a Scottish Terrier that was so devoted to her.