Same pablum, different day

This article is worth your attention, as it encapsulates the feelings of an already large and growing number of people (myself included):

The sad truth, and getting sadder with every attack, is that the political class has little interest in doing what would really be necessary to combat Islamist terrorism, let alone talk about it. They don’t want to talk about how Britain’s (the West’s) lax immigration policies over decades led to hundreds of thousands of immigrants entering the country with varying degrees of willingness to assimilate and adopt Western values. They don’t want to openly criticize the blatant problems with the multiculturalism the UK (West) has pursued for years and the obvious impact it has had on the immigrant population.

Oh no. This would cost them too much. It would shatter the façade of political correctness that’s been constructed over our “civilized” western world, and destroy the illusion, so vital to the political class, that Western values are universal.

The politicians are only willing to give speeches about how united we are and how terrorists cannot tear us apart. But the truth—so clear and obvious—is that with every attack the West becomes more and more divided. We are not united, not by a long shot…

There’s little to no tolerance in polite society for the kind of honesty for which many in the West are hungry…

Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness. They know that their weak platitudes can’t stop terrorism, and so do the people. They might as well come out and say what they mean: get used to the new normal.  ((slight editing and emphasis by yours truly))

Close the borders.  Send the illegals home.  And stop importing more of the medium — hundreds of thousands of Muslims from broken and radicalized countries — in which this ideology flourishes.

This is multiculturalism

It amazes me that many of the loudest voices for ‘women’s rights’ are also thrilled to be welcoming in tens of thousands of refugees invaders for whom cutting up a little girl’s privates is a common practice:

Opposition from some members of Minnesota’s immigrant and refugee communities is slowing the momentum of a bill that would impose stiff penalties for parents involved in cases of female genital mutilation.

Since the bill’s near-unanimous passage in the Minnesota House this week, some longtime critics of the ritual have met with senators, lobbied the governor’s office and handed out fliers — all to raise alarm about the legislation…

Now, the author of the Senate version is voicing second thoughts about approving the legislation yet this session, though Senate GOP leadership have not committed to a course of action. “We all agree this practice is absolutely horrible, and something needs to be done,” said the author, Sen. Karin Housley. “How can we empower communities to address this practice from within rather than having Big Brother come down and say, ‘This is wrong?’ ”

Short answer: you can’t.  Which is why different communities with different values need to live in different areas.  Female genital mutilation is a common practice in the Muslim world (especially in Somalia, where many of the new ‘migrants’ to Minnesota are coming from), and no amount of “empowering” of the community is likely to change that.  Since values are so difficult to change, you’re left with changing external behavior — and thus the need for Big Brother.  Don’t think for a moment our nation’s elites aren’t aware of that.  How better to grow government than as the arbiter of incompatible cultures?

The fact there is newsworthy opposition to this bill (which normally would be a shoe-in under the “it’s for the children” and “grrrrl power” rules of politics) shows how much alien influence already exists in our land.  Does anyone think it gets better from here?

We open our doors to anyone who wants in, but refuse to insist that “when in America, one follows traditional American values.”  (Of course, the retort to that is “who defines traditional American values,” to which I simply say “those who know their history better than their Alinsky.”)

Close.  The.  Borders.  Now.

Deport.  The.  Invaders.  NOW.

And imprison or deport their domestic enablers.

Failure to assimilate

Turkey’s recent election, which further enhanced the Islamist totalitarian powers of Recep Erdogan, shows how far that nation has come from the secular society Kemal Ataturk intended.

The votes by Turks living abroad are even more telling, and should be noted:

About 1.4 million expatriate Turks voted in Turkey’s referendum to grant President Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, with three quarters of them residing in Austria, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. These Turkish voters, living in some of Europe’s most liberal countries, overwhelming cast their ballots for Erdogan’s illiberal reforms of Turkish society…

Life in liberal Europe is not having the impact people hoped—Turks in Europe are not any less nationalistic, less authoritarian or less Islamist than their compatriots at home—rather they are more of all these things..

If assimilation is failing with long established Turks in affluent, full employment Germany, what can we expect with other communities in less prosperous European countries?

The measure squeaked by at home, with just over 51% saying “yes.”  For the Turks living abroad, “Yes” had anywhere from 15 to 25% more support!  That would tend to confirm the thesis that the massive wave of ‘refugees’ in the past couple of years represents an ideological vanguard of Islamism that intends to make Europe submit to it, not the other way around.

The author of the quoted piece seems puzzled that good economic conditions in Germany haven’t produced assimilation.  That’s because assimilation is a primarily a cultural issue, not an economic one.  In the past, Western European nations and the Anglosphere (U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) fully expected newcomers to adopt their language, follow their laws, and to give their undivided loyalty to their new nation.

Immigrants today don’t have to cut the cord with the “old country” the way past generations did.  With global communication, the ability to travel and the tendency to settle into specific ethnic enclaves in their new land, immigrants today have far less motivation to assimilate.  Let’s face it: for Mexicans in the U.S., “home” is next door, you live in barrios with people like yourself, you can watch Spanish-language TV such as Univision, and even wave the Mexican flag while watching the U.S. play that country in soccer.  These are not Mexican-Americans.  They are Mexicans living in America.  The same is true of the Turks in Europe.  Even at the height of the Cold War, with Turkey a key partner in NATO, Europeans were strongly divided over whether or not to consider Turkey “European.”  Its current regression to pining for the days of the Ottoman Empire should answer that question.

The West has basically allowed a substantial fifth column to develop in their midst — a development our traitorous leadership class has encouraged.  While the resulting attacks rarely amount to more than a single actor at a time right now, I suspect that won’t remain the case much longer.  Even the “lone wolves” usually have ideological and communication ties with the Islamist movement.  At this stage of the game, Turks should be carefully watched, not welcomed in with no restrictions.  It’s time to shut the doors for a while and deal with what we’ve already admitted, rather than keep the welcome mat out for anyone with a pulse.

We should seem odd

Apparently, it’s now scandalous to be careful about avoiding even the appearance of impropriety:

Recently, a Washington Post article about second lady Karen Pence has brought the Billy Graham Rule back into the public eye. The article cites a 2002 interview with Vice President Pence — who has called himself an “evangelical Catholic” — saying that he “never eats alone with a woman other than his wife,” and that he doesn’t attend events serving alcohol unless she is with him as well. This will, no doubt, sound strange to the uninitiated. The Onion parodied the story with the headline, “Mike Pence Asks Waiter To Remove Mrs. Butterworth From Table Until Wife Arrives.” It is strange, as are many religious practices, and strange isn’t necessarily bad.

The impulse that led to the Billy Graham Rule — which was actually a solidification of principles guarding against several kinds of temptation — is a good and honorable one: to remain faithful to one’s spouse and to avoid the kind of behavior (or rumors of behavior) that have destroyed the careers of church leaders.

So far, so good – the author of the article appears to understand the motivation.  Then there’s the “but:”

…for men to categorically refuse to meet one-on-one with women is often dehumanizing and denies the image of Christ that each person bears.

The rule also promotes the preservation of men and exclusion of women in positions of leadership. If a woman at work cannot meet one-on-one with her boss or colleague, her options for advancement (or even being taken seriously as a colleague) are extremely limited.

The Billy Graham Rule also denies the reality of LGBT people. As a friend pointed out to me: Should a bisexual person refuse to ever be alone with anyone, full stop? Should a male pastor refuse to meet one-on-one with a gay man?…

Several female pastors I spoke with told me that they wouldn’t have a job if they abided by this rule because meeting one-on-one with men is part of what they have to do within their congregation.

There’s a lot to unpack here.  First of all, I tip my hat to Mike Pence for being so consistent about this that it draws attention.  But while the author makes a stab at seeming understanding, her real purpose is to taint the practice as somehow harmful and “unfair” (a favorite word on the Left).

As the author points out, the Christian belief system assumes “heteronormativity, furthering the idea that people who are LGBT are people “out there,” not an essential part of the church.”  Well, yes.  Continue reading

The Golden Rule and context

Once again the Left demonstrates their hypocritical position that religion doesn’t belong in public policymaking… unless it can be twisted or contorted to support their position:

President Barack Obama said that his understanding of the Bible and his Christian beliefs led him to issue the directive at public schools calling on students to be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing regardless of their biological sex.

“My reading of scripture tells me that that [the] Golden Rule is pretty high up there in terms of my Christian belief,” he said during a town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, according to Breitbart News on Thursday.

One-world globalists would have you believe the Golden Rule is the common thread in all faiths and cultures, and thus the highest arbiter of law – a universalism of “be nice to each other.”  It is not.  Let’s go to scripture directly, shall we?

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”  And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Yes, God expects us to put others ahead of self.  That is clearly taught throughout scripture.  The basis for doing so, however, is devotion to God (the “great and first commandment”).  Such devotion includes respect for ALL of God’s nature and His word — including the part of scripture that clearly states: “male and female He created them” (and not 58 shades of in between as some today would have us believe).

I don’t profess to understand the psychology behind various gender confusion disorders.  I do know they all have this in common: they are but one group of symptoms of this fallen, sin-drenched world that is a distortion of God’s intended creation.  That world would have us all believe the so-called “Golden Rule” means we should never say or do anything to cause another to be troubled (unless that person holds to an orthodox, historic Christian worldview, of course).  That is merely Satan’s way of trying to prevent believers from acting as agents of conviction on behalf of the Holy Spirit.  NOBODY likes to hear they ‘fall short of the glory of God,’ whether their particular shortcoming has to do with something sexual (including inappropriate heterosexual expressions such as adultery) or is simply a lack of self control over anger, materialism, or other manifestations of selfishness.

Granted, many believers are less than loving when addressing such issues, and they become the gongs Paul warned of.  But how is it “loving your neighbor as yourself” when you fail to note there is something between them and the God who loves them–that could separate them from His eternal presence?  How is it ‘loving’ to play along with what used to be more honestly described as mental issues?  Remaining silent and playing along simply allows the emperor to continue making a fool of himself, not realizing he has no clothes.

Treating each other “nicely” is not the measure of salvation or devotion to God (though it is fruit that results from that right relationship).  As the prophets of old were often opposed (and suffered) for speaking uncomfortable truth to society, so it is for believers today.  And with our leaders twisting Scripture to justify their own assaults on reality, it’s only going to get more difficult.  There was a time our people were grounded well enough in Scripture to recognize when it was being used inappropriately.  Now the masses are ignorant, open to the age-old ploy of “did God actually say…?”

Though we hardly deserve it, may God grant yet another revival in this land.

It’s time to ‘Target’ back

Target is the latest company to jump on the “use the bathroom you want to” bandwagon.  (My family has committed not to shop there, and you can, too.)  All of this has come to a head recently (pun for my Navy readers) because North Carolina passed HB-2, which does several principle things:

  • Requires people to use the bathroom of their birth gender – not their imagined one
  • Prohibits towns from using local ordinances to force businesses to open their restrooms to “transgender” choice — though nothing in the bill prevents a business from voluntarily doing so
  • Protects businesses and individuals from being sued for refusing to participate in such things as gay “weddings” (a favorite ‘progressive’ tactic of late)

Opponents of HB-2 would have you believe this is all about people with varying degrees of gender dysphoria (a mental disorder) being allowed to pee in peace.  This alone, of course, ignores the impact on the other 99.7% or so of the population who would now have to put up with people of random genders in every public restroom, thus providing ample cover for sexual predators.  So where is OUR ‘safe space?’

In truth, it goes much deeper than that.  Under the meme of ridiculing the “restroom war,” these radicals are trying to protect their ability to use civil and criminal courts to bully and bludgeon people into playing along with their fantasy world, or paying a high price in legal fees and judgments if they refuse.  They are playing a long-term strategy that, if successful with such precedents, could eventually criminalize the expression of many Christian teachings.  Yes, I believe it is that serious.

Our current president (retirement be upon him) has been fond of telling his supporters to “punch back twice as hard.”  Two can play that game.  It’s time Americans stopped allowing a very, very small group of biology deniers to set the public agenda.  It’s time to stop the spiral of individual silence on our side that makes their voices disproportionately loud.  It’s time to confront them with their own ‘science denial.’ It’s time to remind businesses that their bottom line depends more on the products they provide, not the propaganda they promote on the side.  Poll after poll shows the majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, on this and many other issues.  So stop subsiding the people trying to lead it that way!

These radical advocates say they want compassion – how compassionate is it to be an enabler to someone who has issues they need to face?  How compassionate is it to play along with gender dysphoria to the point the public is more at danger from sexual predation?

And as for all these aging rock stars who refuse to play in North Carolina anymore, it’s time to ask: who cares?  The hypocrisy and smugness of being willing to play in Riyadh but not Raleigh should be apparent to all.

Protect Safe Spaces

The center cannot hold

Years ago, I had a conversation with my dad about how neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were any good for the nation; that both were for ever-larger government, just for slightly different agendas and beneficiaries.  Given that the conversation took place in an election year, and that I was actively seeking alternatives, he was quick to remind me that “only two parties have a chance of winning.”

That wasn’t the first time I’d heard that, and in fact was tired of hearing it. So I pointed out that in Germany by late 1932, only two parties had a “chance of winning” (to lead a coalition): the Nazis and the Socialists/Communists.  I asked dad which I should vote for under those circumstances.  He wasn’t particularly thrilled with my response.

My thoughts returned to that conversation last night as I watched the news about Trump cancelling his rally in Chicago (where else?) due to threats of violence.  Whatever you think of the man politically or personally (and I admittedly don’t think much), yesterday’s events are a poor portent for where our society is headed.  The current generation has been indoctrinated by their college experience to shout down and deny a platform to anyone they believe to be “hurtful” (my poor feewings!).  Naturally, that usually means traditional, truly conservative, patriotic and/or Christian speakers — after all, when’s the last time you heard of Noam Chomsky or George Soros encountering unruly protestors disrupting their speeches?  Now this juvenile leftist campus atmosphere is bleeding into our national political processes, aided in no small part by the current administration, which was elected eight years ago while urging supporters to “get in their faces” and “punch back twice as hard.”  After largely ignoring the thuggish rhetoric of Team Obama and the growing intolerance on college campuses, the press has suffered an attack of the vapors at discovering the targets of that approach (a large percentage of whom are now Trump supporters) are rhetorically responding in kind.  In fact, a case could be made (and has been) that Trump is to some extent the GOP’s Obama (must-click link here!) — more an organizer than a thoughtful leader.  That said, I also don’t believe Ted Cruz covered himself in any glory by using the thuggery of leftist activists primarily to attack Trump.  Trump didn’t ‘create‘ this environment, Ted — he exacerbated one that already existed and was largely created by Gramscian leftists.  You missed an opportunity there, much to my disappointment.

With both sides fanning the flames of passion rather than appealing to reason, is it any wonder the physical tensions are rising?  We would do well to remember that the politics of Weimar Germany, to which I alluded earlier, were filled with literal street fighting between supporters of the opposing camps (this is where the oft cited, but rarely understood in context term “brown shirt” comes from).  There are days when I wonder if we are very far from such circumstances in today’s America.  In the same way Northerners and Southerners held each other in increasing contempt and dehumanization during the first half of the 1800s, we’ve had about half a century of the same process between alleged “liberals” and “conservatives” today.  This is complicated further by the fact that ever-larger numbers of people grab onto those brand labels while following a crowd, with no real understanding of what they mean (truly studying history and political theory is, after all, work).

There is more to this, though, than the simple fact many people are hurting as a result of our government’s failings over the last couple generations.  Every election cycle partisans all across the political spectrum are told “this is the mostest importantest election EVER!”  Fears of a reshaped Supreme Court, or radical legislation in Congress, or the “wrong” person holding the inordinate and unconstitutional power of Executive Orders are trotted out to get everyone to hold their nose and vote for “the lesser of two evils.”

And all along, that means they’ve been voting for evil: for ever-larger government that does everything EXCEPT what it’s supposed to do (i.e. protect the people and punish wrongdoing regardless of the criminal’s social status).  And the more government power has grown, the more dependent its various constituencies have become, so that the chance of the opposition gaining control is seen as an existential threat by both camps.  It is virtually impossible today to roll back any of the Federal government’s power, influence and control because of these well-entrenched constituencies.  THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED!

I can confidently make some predictions: regardless who wins the White House in November, the federal debt will continue to increase, we will continue to engage in pointless overseas combat with no well-thought strategic framework guiding the mess, immigration will continue to flood our nation with people who have even less knowledge of how things are supposed to work here than do the Americans for whom this system is supposed to be a treasured birthright, citizens (and illegal invaders) will continue to demand more bread and circus services from Uncle Sam, and the government will continue to increase its police powers, destroy the middle class, and dumb down education so that the citizenry can neither fully understand nor effectively fight what is being done to it.  These are not sustainable practices.  So while we may not be living in the Lord’s “last days” yet, I believe we’re living in the last days of America as we’ve known it.  As Glenn Reynolds recently put it:

When you have a society that can’t do things that need to be done because every change threatens somebody’s rice bowl or offers insufficient opportunities for graft, you’ve got a society that is due for a reset, not for incremental change.

The thing is, resets are often kind of ugly.

Indeed.  And as I’ve often told students, history shows that revolutions are far more likely to result in worse circumstances for the people than they are to improve them (French Reign of Terror and Emperor Napoleon, anyone?).  For that reason alone, we should treasure the unusual results of 1776, however imperfectly they may have realized the ideals of the Declaration at first.

Instead, we sold our birthright for a mess of political pottage and patronage, and it’s far from certain we can win it back.  Now it seems we’re truly hoist between Scylla and Charibdis.  Maybe after another trial by fire we can remember that it’s better to solve differences with discussion and ballots, rather than disruption and bullets.  If we ever do successfully reset, I hope we’ll also remember that the best way of preventing desperate struggles to gain the “prize” of political power is to make that power not so all-encompassing to start with.