The latest round of virtue signaling from the bleeding heart of California is not simply a poke in the Feds’ eye; it paints a big bull’s-eye on the Bay Area.
You may have seen the headlines. One from Fox News: “San Francisco’s withdrawal from national terror intelligence network hikes risks, officials say,” and another from The Blaze shortly after: “San Francisco withdraws from FBI anti-terrorism network to appease Muslim objections.”
Between them, what has happened is that in order to appease objections from activist groups like CAIR and the ACLU, the San Francisco mayor and police chief have chosen to pull the city out of cooperation with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or JTTF.
The JTTF has operated since 2001 and foiled at least 93 terrorist plots that time. It accomplishes this through partnership with local law enforcement, when local tips indicate terror plots crossing or about to cross state lines the JTTF could act fast and prevent an extremist from carrying out his plan. San Francisco’s move removes a large part of that local intelligence network and reduces effectiveness nationwide. Why? All so the current politicians can virtue signal about standing up to Trump and protecting their Muslim immigrant residents from unfair profiling. Further, San Francisco is also doubling down in its defense of sanctuary city policies.
Anyone remember the Bush years and the demands for a “timetable to get out of Iraq”? Folks in the service knew this was nuts. It might be acceptable for the Joint Chiefs and Commander in Chief to have a Top Secret time table, though setting a cutoff other than “victory” begs the question, “Why did we go to fight and shed our blood in the first place if we don’t intend to win?” But to take it a step further and have a public “timetable” of when we will be leaving the warzone, victory or not, only encourages the enemy to lay down arms and cool their heels until the scheduled day. Then they can get right back to their evil plans.
At that time, I had a peer who authored a study comparing different countries’ appetite for war. Basically, who had the fortitude to stay until victory no matter what, and who was most likely to wimp out after minimal action. Sadly, after comparing death tolls and years of conflict for various wars of the 20th Century, the result was that Afghanistan had the strongest perseverance in war (likely illustrated in the Soviet/Afghan conflict). These guys would go generations while absorbing huge losses to their population in a hopeless conflict, and yet never give up. The weakest? USA. I hate to say it but recent events and political talk support the conclusion. America didn’t suffer losses as heavy as Europe and Asia in the World Wars, and in more recent wars America has had very little tolerance for loss of their own soldiers’ lives, especially when compared to the enemies they fought.
Back to San Francisco…
It’s not just the “sanctuary city” aspect, which we object to based on the open embracing of lawlessness as a matter of public policy. Just like the “timetable out of Iraq,” it is an open announcement of plans that favor an avowed enemy…an enemy coming from the same places as those who have the fortitude and perseverance to see victory no matter how many of their own perish or how many generations it takes. San Francisco might as well as run commercials on Al Jeezera in extremist areas in the Middle East announcing that if a terrorist desires to plot against America, he can enjoy a comfortable and undisturbed time of it in San Francisco, which will not be sharing any local info with the Federal officers who would be better able to put together the picture of a terrorist plot. What’s next? New zoning laws to designate Commercial, Residential, and No-Go zones?
And what do they get out of it? Virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is the easy way of trying to display virtue. It lets someone stand up and show off as if virtuous, without having had to do any of the long hard struggle and work of virtuous deeds and character building. Making large, charitable donations with other people’s money is one example. Giving away our ancestors’ and descendants’ legacy and freedom is another example. Yet another would be passing policies that are unlikely to impact the policy maker but would wreak havoc amongst the majority. Do you think the mayor or police chief or ACLU lawyer worry about the consequences when they probably live in upscale gated communities and can afford personal and neighborhood private security?
Thank God for the Redoubt
Take another look at our sanctuary city resource. Notice that there are no sanctuary cities within the borders of the American Redoubt.
The law is still honored here. No place has perfect laws, but the US way of government has means by which citizens can seek to change the laws they live under. Until then, it is incumbent on citizens to obey the laws, lest we descend into anarchy.
Sanity also remains in the Redoubt. I heard tales of one Redoubt city where a newly elected politician tried to jump on the virtue-signaling band wagon and declare a sanctuary city and start brining in “refugees.” So many local veterans showed up to tell it like it is based on their combat experience, the proposal went down in flames and hasn’t been advanced ever since. That’s exactly the sort of place I admire: where a majority of locals have a spine and a voice of authority to remind weak politicians that elected leaders serve the people, not vice versa.