Parasitical terrorism

I’m increasingly convinced that if we (and the rest of the West) got our own house in order with regard to immigration and welfare, terrorist activity would be severely curtailed even without further major military operations:

On the morning of March 15, Fox 9 chased a tip about a man who was leaving the country. Sources said he took a carry-on bag through security that was packed with $1 million in cash. Travelers can do that, as long as they fill out the proper government forms.

Fox 9 learned that these cloak-and-dagger scenarios now happen almost weekly at [Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport].  The money is usually headed to the Middle East, Dubai and points beyond. Sources said last year alone, more than $100 million in cash left MSP in carry-on luggage…

[Former Seattle police detective Glen] Kerns discovered some of the money was being funneled to a Hawala in the region of Somalia that is controlled by the al Shabaab terrorist group…

As Kerns dug deeper, he found that some of the individuals who were sending out tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of remittance payments happened to be on government assistance in this country.

How could they possibly come up with such big bucks to transfer back home?

“We had sources that told us, ‘It’s welfare fraud, it’s all about the daycare,’” said Kerns.

Read the whole thing.  Minnesota is now home to a very large Somali Muslim community.  Next door in Michigan the Muslims tend to be from Bosnia, Yemen and Bangladesh.  In both states, Islam is increasingly influential.  Those communities are already linked to a rise in female genital mutilation cases (a practice that is rightly illegal in most of the West).  It appears the community is also linked to shenanigans back home as well.

Think about it: we’re allowing colonists to come here, partake of our welfare system, and use some of the proceeds to fund extremist groups back home.  We can’t defeat what we’re allowing ourselves to subsidize.  Seal the borders and tighten down on foreign remittances.  Otherwise there’s no point in waging this war.

Advertisements

What frightens the Left

Today’s recommended read:

Their latest conniption fit has come over two apparently unrelated things. The first, of course, is guns and by extension the right to one’s own personal self-defense in a dangerous and (thanks to the second thing, about which more in a bit) rapidly destabilizing world. …

The Left—which is by turns both malevolent and cowardly, and therefore both tantalized by and fearful of firearms—has never made its hostility toward the Second Amendment a secret, but for decades it was able to keep it under wraps during the half-century or more between the effective closing of the borders to immigration in 1921 and the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, known as the Hart-Celler Act but today chiefly remembered as Ted Kennedy’s lasting gift to the American people. …

Which brings us to the cause of their second recent nervous breakdown: the Trump Administration’s decision to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census form. The movement against it is being led by former attorney general Eric Holder, the knave who was held in contempt of Congress over the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” gun-running program to Mexico, and is an unrepentant radical.

“The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy,” said Holder, announcing a lawsuit. …

On the contrary, this question goes directly to the substance of our representative democracy by acknowledging the difference between citizens and non-citizens, a crucial distinction the Left is trying mightily to erase—and not just because the Democrats stand to benefit from the addition of millions of new dependent and culturally hostile voters.

No, it goes far deeper than that…

As Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

The Constitution of the United States stands athwart the vision of the Left, and for that reason they undermine, vilify, circumvent and ignore it wherever they are permitted.  What they fear is a public fully aware of how that document works, why it’s set up the way it is, and willing to hold officials accountable to it.

Be that public.

Strong words rooted in history

But meaningless unless backed by equally strong action:

The morning after the Trump administration sued California over its immigration policies, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions Wednesday appeared in downtown Sacramento to say states cannot defy the federal government when it comes to immigration

“A refusal to apprehend and deport those, especially the criminal element, effectively rejects all immigration law and creates an open borders system,” Sessions declared. “Open borders is a radical, irrational idea that cannot be accepted.

“There is no nullification. There is no secession,” Sessions said. “Federal law is ‘the supreme law of the land.’ I would invite any doubters to Gettysburg, and to the graves of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln.”

The invocation of John C. Calhoun and nullification is particularly appropriate.  Calhoun’s South Carolina in 1832 claimed the power to “nullify” a hated Federal tariff by simply refusing to collect it within the State’s borders.  The president at the time, Andrew Jackson, was emphatic about Federal supremacy within its Constitutional sphere.  At his behest, Congress passed the Force Act, essentially giving Jackson the power to use military force if necessary to compel compliance and collection of duties.  It never reached that point, in no small part because of Henry Clay’s gifted statesmanship in Congress.  But the situation emphasized the power struggle over Federal versus State prerogatives nearly two decades before Southerners fired on Ft. Sumter.

One interesting aspect of the “Nullification Crisis” was that it pitted a sitting president (Jackson) against his own vice-president (Calhoun).  Two years prior to the crisis this conflict had been made apparent at the 1830 Jefferson Day dinner.  The president, aiming a barb at Calhoun and signaling his waning support for Southern arguments about States’ rights, toasted “Our Union; it must be preserved.”

Calhoun shot back: “The Union, next to our liberty most dear.  May we all remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the States, and distributing equally the benefits and burdens of the Union.”

What, you thought today’s political divisions were unprecedented?  Hardly.

Here’s the point of the history brief: the immigration confrontation flips the usual situation where “conservatives” advocate the 10th Amendment’s reservation of power to the States while “liberals” seek to use Federal supremacy in everything — the better to force change they likely could not through the electoral process.  As recently as the Obama administration Arizona attempted to strengthen border security, only to be sued by the Feds for stepping into an area of Federal supremacy.

Now the shoe’s on the other foot, with the parties in power reversed.  Arizona allegedly couldn’t strengthen its border security beyond the Federal level of enforcement, but California can loosen it?  While both sides are guilty of putting power over principle, it’s both more obvious and dangerous with the sudden liberal embrace of claiming exceptions to Federal power.  The same leftist groups who argued before Federal judges in 2016 that North Carolina couldn’t ban confused men from women’s restrooms is now arguing California can have its own foreign policy in the area of immigration.  Okay…

Here’s what California and Calhoun have in common (besides both being Democrats, but I digress…): both were/are Constitutionally wrong.  Some readers may be surprised to see me write that, because Constitutionally I am a strict constructionist who interprets (in keeping with the 10th Amendment) the document as a constraint on Federal power, and am generally sympathetic to defending States’ rights.  That said, if the document expressly gives the Feds a particular power, there’s no arguing it.  In the case of Calhoun’s fight against tariffs, Article 1, Section 8 (*) of the Constitution clearly grants Congress the power to levy taxes, duties, imposts and excises, provided they are uniform throughout all States.

The Constitution does not contain the word “immigration,” but in the same section cited above grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.  This means States and cities have no authority to establish “sanctuaries” where illegal immigrants are given the same privileges as citizens.  Those local authorities who do so are in defiance of the Constitution, and have abrogated any oath they took to support and uphold it.  They should be held appropriately accountable for that.

Because the “sanctuary” concept has become so trendy in Leftist circles, the Trump administration now faces widespread defiance of Federal authority.  Trump is sometimes compared to Jackson (faulty personality and all).  One wonders whether he will rely solely on the courts, where your mileage varies considerably concerning Constitutional interpretation, or whether he will follow Jackson’s more direct approach.  Or, for that matter, President Lincoln’s:

WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law. (emphasis added)

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed…

It’s a simple thing to substitute  California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont for the list of States in the first quoted paragraph above, and have the declaration apply to the issue of whether or not the United States can control its borders without local interference.

Given how divided we are as a nation, I have no doubt such a declaration would precede the same kind of national tragedy that Lincoln’s did.  It’s not the outcome I’d want, but reality has a way of disregarding our personal desires.   More than at any time since 1865, Americans need to rediscover how easy it is to read their own Constitution, and understand what policies are and are not acceptable under it.  That document used to be a unifying force in our national fabric.  Our current collective ignorance of it is a significant contributor to the political climate in which we find ourselves.

The tinder is very dry, and matches abound.  Pray for the best but prepare accordingly.

********************

(*) on a lighter note, I should point out I’ve long thought it funny that Article 1, Section 8 spells out the powers of Congress, while fans of the TV show M*A*S*H will recall the Army’s version of “section 8” refers to discharges due to mental unfitness.  Make of that what you will.

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.

Well… who’da thunk?

Note: this is a lengthy post in part because I’m refuting secularists who misuse scripture to justify the ongoing invasion of the West.  If you arrived on this site’s main page be sure to click on “Continue reading” below.

Both a judge in Washington and an appeals panel of the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed President Trump’s executive order banning entry to the country by people from seven nations considered to be high risk (incidentally, it was Obama who first flagged these nations as problematic).  Both courts claimed there was no evidence to support such a ban.

Truth is, they just didn’t look for any.  After all, pesky facts would get in the way of their legislating AND presiding from the bench:

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

Let me repeat that: 72 people from the countries on Trump’s list arrived in the United States since 9/11, and were later convicted of terror-related actions.

This is why I can’t stand the Transportation Security Agency — it’s security theater, not real security.  Real security comes from keeping terrorists out of the country, not from harassing citizens at airports.

This is why I can’t stand the open borders crowd.  Either we are a sovereign nation or we’re not.  Sovereign nations have every right to control who is allowed to enter and under what circumstances.

Continue reading

The fall of Western Civilization

I usually keep Saturdays light, with some music or random musing.  I just can’t do that this week.  Not after reading two stories within minutes of each other, both of which herald just how much our governments aren’t serious about their primary duty: protecting their citizens.

Exhibit A: In Sweden, five teenage migrants from Afghanistan have been convicted of gang-raping another teenage migrant.  But despite calls from the prosecution to expel the convicts back to their native country, it won’t happen because “of their age and the dangers they would face in their homeland.”  One of the dangers of Afghanistan is the widespread practice of rape.  By allowing these “youths” to spend less than a year and a half in jail, then return to Swedish society, the government is essentially allowing barbarous behavior to be imported there.

Exhibit B: A man from Mexico who had been deported ten times since 2003 is now accused of raping a 13-year old girl in Kansas.

I don’t mean to imply that such crimes are never committed by citizens.  We already have crime enough from domestic sources.  But it’s increasingly clear that the flood tide of migrants across Europe and the United States is bringing in a large number of what Trump indelicately referred to as “bad hombres.”  A nation that is serious about its sovereignty and security would never allow someone to reenter illegally nine more times after first being caught.  For all the impact they’re being allowed to have, we might as well defund the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the joke known as the “Department of Homeland Security.”

It’s bad enough these people are committing the national equivalent of ‘breaking and entering.’  When that behavior is compounded by assaults and crimes against the citizens living here, it should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.  The dilemma is that I’m one of many people who believe our police need to reduce the instances of abuse of authority… and yet on this important issue it’s as if we don’t even have police.  As Charlie Daniels sang in Simple Man, “I’m the kinda guy wouldn’t harm a mouse, but if I catch somebody breaking in my house, I gotta 12-gauge shotgun waitin’ inside.”  (Full disclosure: mine’s only a 20-gauge, but it now has several stable mates with it.  The Musketeers and I took them out for a spin just this week.)

Scripture says governments are permitted to ‘bear the sword‘ in order to reward good and punish evil.  Punishment is severely lacking in both cases above (and countless others I’ve read and could link to but in the interest of time don’t).  The message all this sends is that these are happy hunting grounds, further compounding the problem.  We need to send a much different signal, and soon.  While I don’t take death lightly, there is an argument to be made along the lines of “shoot a few and the rest will learn.”  Because our governments won’t exercise their responsibility here, I predict citizens will increasingly take matters into their own hands.  When you delegate authority to someone and they fail to get the job done, the boss usually takes that power back.

We need to remember who the boss is for Western republics.  And it’s NOT the jokers in D.C. Mordor.

Can the candles, already

For the past several years, a pattern keeps repeating:

1. Jihadist(s) conduct an attack in a Western country

2. Facebook allows users to “stand with ______” by changing their profile pic to include attacked country’s flag, while locals place piles of candles and flowers at the scene of the latest carnage.

3.  The chattering class preemptively expresses grave concern that the attack will cause locals to look less favorably on Islam, or provoke retaliatory assaults (how many of those have actually happened, by the way?).  None of our intrepid media moguls dig into the warped but widespread Islamic ideology behind the attacks…so these events are always “lone wolf” attackers, supposedly not representative of Islam itself.

4.  Authorities confirm the event was conducted by foreigners recently allowed into the country, often by requesting “asylum” (which, by the way, is where they need to be, not what they need to be given!).

5. Migrants continue to pour into the West, aided and abetted by our transnational ruling class, and the terror networks reload for the next round.

And we wonder why nothing changes.  Take, for example, this picture and caption that accompanies the Daily Mail’s (UK) coverage of the attack in Berlin:

is-this-defiance

How, exactly, do “flowers and candles defy the terrorists?” If I were a member of ISIS, I’d see photos like this as proof the West is the “weaker horse.”  Rather than create makeshift memorials, those who want to express concern should be putting extreme pressure on their ‘leaders’ to seal the $#%@ borders and start repatriations!  Why are people like Angela Merkel still in office?  The press spends more time trying to make the alternatives (like AfD or UKIP or the National Front) look like evil, when potential future assailants are being allowed into their countries daily!

When will people tire of this pattern?

When will the men of the West stand up to protect their women from a barbarous culture that places no limits on what can be done to them?

When will Westerners realize that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with our own civilization, and stop trying to force the two to coexist?