All the gun control zealots out in full force last week have apparently gone to the beach. An alarming shooting took place at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in San Antonio on Tuesday. Local media reported that “multiple shots were fired on two floors targeting ICE officials.” But the Second Amendment saboteurs were AWOL.

Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Federal government workers are under literal fire for enforcing our immigration laws and protecting America. But the left-wing Moms Demand Action ignored the story. So did the anti-gun Brady Campaign agitators. And the usual stampede of camera-hogging Democratic presidential candidates lost their unquenchable thirst for the spotlight to blame “hate speech” for inducing violence.

The vacuum is bipartisan. With few exceptions, Beltway Republicans have also lost their tongues when they should be relentlessly smashing the open borders wall of silence about this escalating anti-ICE terror campaign. The San Antonio attack comes just one month after an antifa extremist ambushed an ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, armed with a rifle and incendiary devices. The vengeful antifa gunman had assaulted a police officer last year at the same location, received a wrist slap, and then published a manifesto that declared: “I strongly encourage comrades and incoming comrades to arm themselves.”

The Tacoma terrorist had also invoked the incendiary ICE-bashing rhetoric of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her diatribes on ICE centers as “concentration camps” were, in turn, borrowed from and amplified by rent-a-mobsters who demonized Homeland Security employees at a string of summer demonstrations against ICE facilities the past two years -- from the lawless hellhole of Portland to the D.C. swamp to the Big Apple criminal sanctuary to my adopted home state of Colorado, where the American flag was ripped from its post and replaced with the Mexican flag by still-unidentified vandals on the loose.

The same hysterical demagogues who are blaming me for the El Paso shooting because my first book on immigration in 2002 was titled “Invasion” are silent about the climate of hate wrought by:

--The New York Times op-ed page’s brazen call to target ICE and Border Patrol agents and their families.

--WikiLeaks’ “ICE Patrol” personal information and location database targeting more than 9,000 ICE employees, from auditors to young research assistants and interns, electricians, IT analysts, field intelligence officers, translators, anti-terrorism experts and detention and deportation agents.

--Twitter’s publication of bloody hate speech by antifa and Abolish ICE thugs, including Occupy Wall Street’s graphic cartoon advising followers on how to stab an ICE agent in the chest “and pull out his still beating heart.”

Who’s funding the wicked war on ICE? For starters, open borders billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, his son Alex’s Jewish social justice nonprofit Bend the Arc, Soros-backed CREDO Action, and the Soros-funded Center for Popular Democracy, United We Dream and Make the Road New York have all subsidized and stoked hatred of ICE and the Border Patrol.

This is not anti-Semitism, white nationalism or white supremacy. It’s fact.

And it’s not a conspiracy “theory” that Soros’ money has fueled dangerous immigration anarchy. It’s conspiracy truth.

Even more shocking is how much of the toxic propaganda undermining the men and women on our Homeland Security front-lines is being underwritten by unsuspecting taxpayers, churchgoers and consumers.

In the coming weeks, I will be exposing the global financiers and government programs promoting the campaign to “melt ICE,” turn the Border Patrol into the “diaper patrol,” open the floodgates to every last unvetted Muslim refugee and unassimilated, low-wage Central American laborer, and erase the America my legal immigrant parents taught me to cherish.

My seventh book, “Open Borders, Inc.: Who’s Funding America’s Destruction,” will be released on Sept. 10, 2019. I’ve compiled nearly 500 pages and 12 appendices and maps tracing tens of billions of dollars spent or received by 400+ nonprofits, religious charities, legal organizations, political lobbying groups, businesses and government contractors, backed up by 1,600-plus footnotes to educate my fellow citizens.

Border security and restored sovereignty start with defunding the funders of America’s destruction, and then prosecuting them as criminal open borders racketeers. Follow the money; find the truth.

Malkin is author of the upcoming book, “Open Borders, Inc.: Who’s Funding America’s Destruction,” available now for preorder at Amazon.com .

By Thomas Jipping

The Daily Signal

[ Ed. Note : Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.]

Left-wing opponents of an impartial and independent judiciary have picked another target: appeals court nominee Steven Menashi.

It’s one thing to be honest about a nominee’s record, but disagree about whether he belongs on the bench. The attacks begun on Menashi, however, amount to nothing more than dishonest smears.

Menashi, whose Jewish family came to the United States from Iran, received his law degree from Stanford before clerking first for U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg and then for Justice Samuel Alito. He became a partner at one of America’s premier law firms and has taught at two prestigious law schools.

The brewing conflict over Menashi’s nomination, like so many others, is not about his qualifications, or really about him at all. It’s about the kind of judge he will be.

Justice Clarence Thomas recently wrote that “[o]ur judicial task is modest: We interpret and apply written law to the facts of particular cases.”

Conflicts over judicial nominations, including Menashi’s, are about how judges should accomplish this task. Should judges be impartial, taking the Constitution and statutes as written and applying them neutrally? Or should judges be political, manipulating what the Constitution and statutes mean and applying them to favor certain political interests?

President Donald Trump nominated Menashi for the same reason his critics oppose him: Menashi will be an impartial, not a political, judge.

In 2009, Menashi reviewed a book by liberal law professorCassSunstein.The book’s title spoke volumes: “A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn’t Mean What it Meant Before.”

In his review, Menashi wrote that “living constitutionalists” like Sunstein “aim to establish not a ‘living’ but a zombie Constitution; they want to take the corpse of constitutional text and reanimate it with new principles in every generation. But this Constitution is at war with itself. … The living Constitution is always an unstable mix of living and dead elements, chosen according to the preference of the assembler.”

To the left, saying that the Constitution and statutes mean what they were intended to mean at the time they were enacted, and not what judges want them to mean today, is the unforgiveable sin. And they have Menashi in their sights. He had not even been nominated, for example, when MSNBC host Rachel Maddow launched a slanderous smear.

Menashi wrote an article in 2010 making the case that Israel’s policy of favoring Jews for immigration is consistent with liberal democratic values such as equality. He showed how Israel was far from unique in taking this approach.

Maddow, however, accused Menashi of making a “high-brow argument for racial purity” and arguing that “democracy can’t work unless the country is defined by a unifying race.”

No one who had actually read Menashi’s article could honestly describe it that way. Like other distortions of other judicial nominees’ records, Maddow’s false charge was ignorant, deliberate, or both. Neither, however, should be acceptable to anyone on either side of this debate.

If the left believes that the Constitution should mean whatever a federal judge wants it to mean, it should be honest and try to defend that position.

If it believes that any five members of the Supreme Court should be able to create, modify, or delete rights and liberties at will, it should fess up and make its case.

If it believes that elections really don’t matter because unelected judges should have the last word on what our laws mean, it should have the decency to say so.

That radical position, however, is indefensible. It is the opposite of how America’s Founders designed our system of government in general, and the judiciary as part of that system in particular. So it instead concocts false claims and relies on the public’s acceptance of its smear.

Back in February 2001, only a few weeks after President George W. Bush took office, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., vowed that Democrats would use “whatever means necessary” to fight judicial nominees they opposed.

It seems like their allies in the liberal media are continuing the revolution.