A greater tragedy

In no way is this post meant to take way from the fact nearly 60 people died, hundreds more were injured, and thousands subjected to terror in Las Vegas Sunday night.  But after reading and watching this, I realized there is a much greater loss we’ve sustained as a nation:

FBI special agent Aaron Rouse said at a press conference Wednesday that the FBI has leads in the investigation of the Las Vegas shooting “all across the United States and all across the world.” …

“This is about informing on an investigation, this is about resolving an investigation, so specifics regarding any individual contact cannot be answered. You need us, you trust us, and the way we have that trust is by using good discretion about what we share.”

At that point I realized: “I DON’T trust the FBI.”  Or the Justice Department.  Or the Department of Homeland Security.  Not at all.  Not anymore.  And I’m certain I’m far from alone.

Isn’t it odd our investigators insisted within 12 hours of the attack that despite the terror organization’s repeated claims, the gunman had no connection to ISIS — but after more than several months and more than 100 witnesses testifying, the Senate Intelligence Committee is still clinging desperately to the idea the Trump campaign colluded with Russia somehow?  How can they be so sure in either case, unless it’s a predetermined outcome?  Isn’t it odd the FBI can remain tight-lipped about investigating Las Vegas, but leaks like a sieve when it comes to investigating a sitting president?  Isn’t it odd that last year the former Director of the FBI, James Comey, could read off what was in essence an indictment of Hillary Clinton and her team’s use of an unauthorized email server, and yet claim there was no need to press charges?  Isn’t it odd that despite conclusive evidence the IRS illegally discriminated against conservative political groups that former IRS official Lois Lerner won’t face any penalties?  Isn’t it odd that a man who boasted to employees on Capitol Hill about his ability to get people “worked over” in Pakistan was allowed to remain in charge of the Democratic National Committee’s information technology support? (And isn’t it odd how supportive–even threatening–the former DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has been of Awan, considering he was in a position to know a lot of unpleasant secrets?)

It’s sad that in the wake of the worst mass shooting in American history I have no confidence our government will level with the public about what happened.  It’s sad that I believe the most sincere participation by concerned citizens in our process of governing is unlikely to produce the desired changes, because of the action of unknown, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who thwart any attempt to “drain the swamp.”

What’s saddest is that being patriotic may soon mean choosing between country and government.  That’s what happens when the latter forfeits the public’s trust.

 

Advertisements

We were warned

Next April will mark the 50th anniversary of a controversial speech in England.  But while there was much pearl-clutching and vapors at the time it was delivered, yesterday’s events in Manchester prove that it was indeed prophetic and, if anything, understated.  Enoch Powell may have known his words would not be received well, but they are worth reviewing today:

…the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after…

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population…

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

And all of this was said well before the term “jihad” once again became a household word in the West.  Those who encouraged the idea of utopian multiculturalism will have much blood on their hands before this is over.  It’s said that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it (see: Roman Empire, barbarian immigrations).  For those of us who do study history, we are condemned to see the folly of those who fail to learn their lessons.  Those lessons, more often than not, are paid for in blood and ought to be valued far more than they are.  But in our human arrogance, each generation says “this time it’ll be different.”

No, it won’t.

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.

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?

They say it like it’s a bad thing

The globalists are worried that the nations are waking up to the problems they’ve created:

In the wake of the Brexit vote in Britain and the recent Italian referendum, and with national elections looming in 2017 in the Netherlands, France, and Germany, there is concern that Europe may be inundated by a populist wave, driven in large part by right-wing parties exploiting anti-globalization, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim sentiments…

Polls show that people who have a favorable view of the National Front (FN) in France, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Germany, and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands tend to be more negative about immigrants, refugees, and Muslims than their fellow countrymen. In addition, they are more euro-skeptic and more wary of globalization than their compatriots.

While the often nasty, nativist rhetoric of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the FN, or Geert Wilders, the founder of the Dutch Party for Freedom, is certainly key to attracting supporters, the intensity and breadth of right-wing, populist sentiments among party sympathizers — as well as a substantial minority of the general public — is notable in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Here’s how Foreign Policy could have worded the first paragraph to be less biased:  “Recent elections, including the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Donald Trump in the United States, seem to indicate the electorates in many countries no longer silently accept the watering down of their culture and increasing threats of terrorism just to accommodate the greatest mass migration in world history.  They’ve seen the ruin that globalization and mass immigration has caused, and now they’re saying the push for “diversity” should at least include the idea of a Germany for the Germans, a Britain for the British, a France for the French and an America for Americans.”

The great irony is that in the name of ‘diversity,’ the globalists are really pursuing the lowest common denominator and forcing it onto everyone, everywhere.  That’s the antithesis of diversity!  Each nation should have the sovereign right to determine who gets to live among them, and to require immigrants adapt to their new home, not the other way around.  Such protections cannot be entrusted to what is clearly a transnational elite with no real connection to the people they allegedly represent.

As the article points out, in 2017 there are some key elections in France, Germany, and Holland.  We can expect to hear more name-calling as the transnational press attempts to slander concerned, patriotic nationalists as simple “nasty nativists,” in the manner Geert Wilders is called out in this article.  While I don’t appreciate a lot of things Donald Trump says off the cuff, I’ll give him this: he seems impervious to being bullied away from his positions by the smears of the media minions.  More of us need to follow that example.

What the ‘nasty nativists’ realize is that transporting a person to a new country does not automatically assimilate them into the prevailing culture.  And transporting into the West literally millions of people who have no common framework with Western Civilization — indeed, many of whom actively seek its destruction — is simply a recipe for transnational suicide.

And the more “they” try to cram this down our throats, the more response they’re going to get.  What all these self-appointed elites need to ask themselves is why people increasingly support strident nationalism instead of their preferred program.  In other words, what have they done that makes electing Donald Trump seem a reasonable alternative?  They’ll never be that introspective, though.  So things are only going to get worse.

…and America belongs to those who built it… not the Juan- or Muhammed-come-latelies.

The sound of one side fighting

…while the other refuses to see–much less respond to–the ever-clearer pattern:

european_daily_terror_timeline_7-26-16-1

Far more troubling than the mounting body count and ever-more-frequent attacks is the flaccid response of Western “leaders.”  French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has said his countrymen must “learn to live” with terror attacks.  Germany’s Interior Minister warns his nation should expect more “lone wolf attacks,” while studiously avoiding the subject of how so many of those lone wolves are recent arrivals under a disastrously lax and greatly abused refugee policy.

Nor are these attitudes — or attacks — confined to the eastern side of the Atlantic.  Several years ago President Obama touted the ability of the U.S. to “absorb” another 9/11-scale attack.  In the time since, one could argue he’s made the likelihood of one much higher by importing hundreds of thousands of people from the war-torn Middle East.  Certainly we’ve seen the fruit of these attitudes in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and elsewhere.  So much for the idea of “fighting them over there.”

These “leaders” don’t care about the deaths of priests, doctors, or children out for a stroll on a national holiday.  All they care about is promoting their globalist aspirations and personal virtue-signalling, no matter the expense to their own people.  Globalists and multiculturalists are by definition traitors to their nation, and given the apparent consequences of their policies should be treated as such.

For the heart-on-the-sleeve hand-wringers out there who reflexively oppose any suggestion that immigration needs a time out, I have a few questions:

  1. How is it “compassionate” to support a policy that clearly results in the random deaths of your own countrymen?
  2. How is it “compassionate” to support a policy that results in seething resentment toward a group of aliens who are encouraged to migrate without assimilating, and live on the public dole?   This is no way to build bridges between peoples!
  3. How is it “compassionate” to allow such a large number of immigrants that your own nation’s cultural norms are threatened in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance?
  4. Is your compassion strong enough to lead you overseas to help, or only something you’re willing to satisfy at the expense of your own community by bringing the problems here?

I’m not immune to recognizing the suffering that goes on in other parts of the world — I’ve seen some of it first hand.  Which is why I’m not a fan of utopian “we are the world” policies that are far more likely to import such suffering here than they are to do anything else.

If our “leaders” want to show their humanitarian side, let them do it by personally going to the suffering areas of the world and working to alleviate and resolve the issues.  But let’s stop pretending the solution to all the world’s ills is to erase all the borders on the globe.  That’s clearly making the world even more of a mess.

Unless we find the backbone to shrug off juvenile name-calling as we do what needs doing to protect our own society, the war drums will only get louder as the Fifth Column gets larger.  If you think what Trump has to say on security and immigration looks scary, just let the trend depicted above continue for another election cycle or two.  His proposals will look downright cuddly compared to his political successor — and the public will be demanding even more hard lines.

There’s NOTHING “compassionate” about taking that path.  We’ve allowed the problems to fester for too long already — there are no easy, painless solutions.  And the longer we wait, the more pain will be involved.

Secure the borders – NOW!

Deport known criminals (including illegal immigrants) – NOW!

Throw the globalist traitors out of office – NOW!

The States stepping up?

Obama is intent on continuing to import a replacement electorate, no matter what the security risks may be:

America will not halt its efforts to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut, one of President Obama’s top security advisers said on Sunday.

In an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, Obama’s deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said that America has “expansive screening procedures” for accepting refugees who are fleeing from ISIS-related violence.

Considering we can’t even seem to screen our own security clearance personnel that well anymore, I highly doubt there’s a well-oiled machine in place to prevent ISIS from ‘coming to America’ as part of this wave of new Democratic voters-in-waiting.  But at least some chief executives aren’t so blind to the risks:

     Governor Snyder: No More Syrian Refugees in Michigan

     Alabama Governor Refuses to Relocate Syrian Refugees in State

I can guarantee the Feds will do all they can to disregard any resistance at the State level.  We are in the end stages of a deliberate effort to transform the American electorate that began with the 1965 Immigration Act.  And if accelerating that process includes the real risk of ISIS coming ashore, it will be overlooked because The One is in his final year of power and knows a backlash is coming once he’s out of office.  His mission to “fundamentally transform” America trumps all other considerations — including the safety of your family and mine.

Americans were ready to resist the forced importation of illegally naturalized immigrants in recent years.  How much more should they be ready to do so, given the current security state of the world?  Nothing in our Constitution should be construed as giving Uncle Sam the right to dump tens of thousands of aliens willy-nilly across America.  If we aren’t willing to stand up to a government that refuses to listen to just concerns over security (including economic security — there aren’t enough jobs for those of us already here!), our nation is lost.  It is OUR country — it doesn’t belong to our would-be rulers who are more than willing to give it away!

May more governors lead where our national leaders are failing to do so.  And may the people of their States fully support them.  Forget pleading with D.C. to do the right thing — call your State leadership today and demand they follow the example of Michigan and AlabamaThen help them make the refusal stick!