THE WAR CRY FOR A WARRIOR POTUS...THE DEMOCRATS WILL NOT PROTECT US!!!!!!!!!

[DE]

Law and Order Returns

Wall Street Journal, by Daniel Henninger    Original Article

Posted By: StormCnter- 12/10/2015 7:50:15 AM     Post Reply

With the terrorist massacre Dec. 2 in San Bernardino, the law-and-order issue returns to presidential politics. From 1968 into the 1980s, law and order was a domestic issue that damaged the Democrats and defeated their presidential candidates. One phrase will revive the memory: “Soft on crime.” This time it’s different. Today the law-and-order problem stretches from San Bernardino to Chicago to Syria. Same question, though: Will the Democrats protect us? Barack Obama gave that speech Sunday because the White House realized that leading from behind on terrorism means you are . . . behind. The problem is, once you fall behind the curve aw and Order Returns http://www.lucianne.com/?s=4965 In unsettled times, Hillary Clinton could be the Hubert Humphrey of 2016. header scope-web|mobileapps " data-layout="header "> ENLARGE The Inland Regional Center, site of the Dec. 2 mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. Photo: Jae C. Hong/Associated Press By Daniel Henninger Daniel Henninger The Wall Street Journal CANCEL BiographyDaniel Henninger @danhenninger Google+ [e-mail] Dec. 9, 2015 6:57 p.m. ET 477 COMMENTS With the terrorist massacre Dec. 2 in San Bernardino, the law-and-order issue returns to presidential politics. From 1968 into the 1980s, law and order was a domestic issue that damaged the Democrats and defeated their presidential candidates. One phrase will revive the memory: “Soft on crime.” This time it’s different. Today the law-and-order problem stretches from San Bernardino to Chicago to Syria. Same question, though: Will the Democrats protect us? wrap " data-layout="wrap "> Opinion Journal Video Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Jason Riley on Congressional legislation to tighten national security in the wake of ISIS terrorist attacks. Photo credit: Associated Press. Barack Obama gave that speech Sunday because the White House realized that leading from behind on terrorism means you are . . . behind. The problem is, once you fall behind the curve on the law-and-order issue, it’s hard to play catch up. Ask any Democrat old enough to remember Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey, who was LBJ’s vice president, ran for president against Richard Nixon in 1968. Far more than now, 1968 was a year in which the U.S. seemed to be coming apart—the war in Vietnam, two political assassinations, urban crime and the notorious Democratic convention in Chicago where the police battled left-wing protesters. Humphrey inherited this mess. Nixon put restoring “law and order” at the center of his campaign and hammered Humphrey with it. Humphrey countered with “order and justice” and solving the “root causes” of crime. Humphrey was never able to overcome the public’s sense of unease about domestic security. Nixon carried 32 states to Humphrey’s 13, with independent candidate George Wallace taking five southern states, which Nixon certainly would have won. For years after, the Democrats carried the security issue like a ball and chain. At the 1984 Republican convention that nominated Ronald Reagan for a second term, U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick branded the opposition “San Francisco Democrats,” evoking the party’s antidefense drift on foreign policy with its nomination of Minnesota Sen. Walter Mondale. Mondale carried one state, his own. The pieces are now falling into place for another law-and-order presidential campaign. Law and order is an issue made possible by modern media coverage. In past decades, the press reported details and TV broadcast images of urban riots, crime and political protests. Today, modern media trains its lens relentlessly on every disturbing event and pursues the aftermath in detail. The effect is to compress these incidents into an emotional mass of discomfort. Here’s one list, whose common thread is troubled times: Ferguson, Baltimore, Charleston, soaring urban murder rates, the Umpqua Community College killings Oct. 1, the rise of Islamic State and its barbaric videos, Charlie Hebdo, Syrian refugee flows, two weeks of highly publicized protests on U.S. campuses and, now, San Bernardino. Law and order in the ’60s and ’70s was a domestic problem. For the Obama Democrats, it’s an everywhere problem. The White House and congressional Democrats are now pushing out political countermeasures, such as creating an ISIS “czar” in the White House. Hillary Clinton says social-media sites should “deprive jihadists of virtual territory.” Too late. The days when the Democrats could claim to be the party of personal or national security are long gone. In 1968, Richard Nixon tagged them with it. This time, they’ve done it to themselves. With the four Democratic presidents from FDR to LBJ, security was a partisan debate over details. Since 1970 and the Democrats’ long march left, providing for the common defense has been leaching out of the party’s DNA. San Bernardino: Out popped the reflexive call for gun control. As the solution for deterring two trained jihadists, “gun control” is a hollow, inadequate gesture. The hard issue now is surveillance. For that, Congress after 9/11 passed the Patriot Act. Within two years, the words “Patriot Act” were anathema to Democrats, who set about dismantling it. In June, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephony data (joined by Ted Cruz). President Obama, the great veto threatener, signed the bill. On domestic security, which is to say urban safety, progressive Democrats have eroded and delegitimized the police function. In New York City, a federal lawsuit brought by progressives ended stop-and-frisk. When Bill de Blasio, the city’s ultra-progressive mayor, sided with antipolice protesters last December, the cops pulled back on policing. Nationally, this phenomenon is called the “Ferguson effect.” The victims of rising crime, such as 9-year-old Tyshawn Lee, who was executed by a Chicago gang last month, are overwhelmingly black. As to Islamic State, Democrats are solid with Mr. Obama’s assertion after the Paris massacre that the U.N.’s Climate Change Conference there was a “powerful rebuke” to ISIS. His Middle East policy, carved in the mineral of Obamaite, is out of phase with the national mood. Democrats will scream that playing the law-and-order card is unfair, false, racist (1968-84) or Islamophobic (2009-15). Protecting hearth and home is still the essential function of government. Hillary Clinton may be the Hubert Humphrey of 2016. http://www.wsj.com/article_email/law-and-order-returns-1449705449-l...

[kevin kiernan]

We need a leader with a good,solid foreign policy for starters.