The Fallout Continues

The fallout from Wednesday’s contentious CNBC debate continues. Politico reports that the Republican presidential candidates are taking matters into their own hands.

Representatives from at least nine campaigns will be meeting in Washington, D.C., Sunday to discuss how they can force changes to the debate structure. No one from the Republican National Committee (RNC), which set up this process with the media, has been invited.

The candidates’ frustrations run the gamut from the questioning to the reliance on national polls to determine who makes it into the prime time debates.

Chairman Reince Priebus announced [Friday] that the RNC has canceled a February debate with NBC News. “The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith,” Priebus wrote. “We need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.”

Meanwhile, there is an amusing report that the CNBC moderators and staff were “shell-shocked” by the negative reaction to their performance. Of course, the liberal news media think the big story is the criticism of the liberal media.

But there is no doubt CNBC hurt itself. Even liberal media icon Carl Bernstein declared, “More than anything … CNBC was really reprehensible… And [conservative critics] are right about the mainstream media.”

But the moderators likely helped themselves. As much as conservatives may have despised their performance, at least 40% of the country was cheering. The left-wing cultural elites were ecstatic. John Harwood, Carl Quintanilla and Becky Quick have likely guaranteed themselves almost any kind of media career they want.

Border Security Is National Security

When it comes to immigration, passions run deep. While some aspects of the debate are complex, I hope we can all agree that the people we allow to come here legally should be committed to our values and to democratic principles. As I have frequently argued, in a post-9/11 world border security is national security.

We should not allow individuals dedicated to overthrowing our constitutional system of government to come here. Our immigration procedures and policies should guarantee that we are not importing tribal hatreds and that most ancient of evils, anti-Semitism.

Polls show that significant percentages of Muslims around the world adhere to radical beliefs that are contrary to our concept of freedom. Many harbor anti-Semitic attitudes and buy in to conspiracy theories about who attacked us on 9/11.

We know that we already have a problem with radical Islam in this country. Minneapolis, of all places, is a hotbed of jihadi recruitment. Yet record numbers of Muslims are coming into the country every year due to our immigration and refugee policies.

I raise this issue again because recent headlines demand our attention.

Posters appeared Tuesday on a university campus in England with the caption “Hitler Was Right.”

Earlier this week, it was reported that German intelligence officials are alarmed by what they are seeing in the so-called “refugee crisis.” A high-level intelligence report warned, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples as well as a different societal and legal understanding.”

Unfortunately, the political left doesn’t seem to be paying any attention. Some liberal politicians are demanding that we let hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees into the country.

Common sense suggests we should consider a freeze on Muslim immigration while opening our doors to Middle East Christians, who are facing what can only be described as genocide.

Kudos To North Carolina

The nation was outraged this summer when Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times. Her killing led to legislation in Congress, known as Kate’s Law, to crack down on sanctuary cities like San Francisco that provide safe havens to illegal immigrants.

I am still shaking my head in disgust that Senate liberals sided with radical activists and filibustered Kate’s Law. Such legislation is overwhelmingly popular. Nearly 60% of the public supports cutting off federal funding to sanctuary cities.

But if that legislation were allowed a vote on the Senate floor, left-wing politicians would have to choose between the vast majority of people and playing identity politics with professional grievance groups like La Raza and the ACLU, which adamantly support sanctuary cities. Thankfully at the state level we are getting action.

I am pleased to report that North Carolina enacted legislation this week banning “any policy that interferes with the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” The new law will likely force several cities, including Charlotte, to change their pro-illegal immigration policies.