Slander Works: A Case Study

Patriots, conservatives, Constitutionalists, and those of faith have been subject to slander and character assassination by the left for years.  Slander is a core tactic of the left.  It has been effective in intimidating and placing doubts in the minds of those on the right about the truth and viability our our message.  If you slander or shoot the messenger, you sabotage the message.
Here is an example. 
I sent THIS BLOG about the dangers of uncontrolled migration and immigration out to the world. 
The blog mentioned a book by Ann Corcoran and provided her short video that succinctly warns about illegal and excess immigration.
I received this warning from one of the blog’s conservative recipients:

“Ann Corcoran is the darling of Vdare which is a white supremacist and anti Semitic blog. Probably not the best source.”

I wondered how true this was, so I replied:

“Show me evidence of this from sources other than from leftist sites attempting to smear her.”

I was aware that leftist sites like the Southern Poverty Law Center makes their living out of slandering conservatives.  I didn’t get a reply.  So I wrote again:

“What is the basis of your statement that Vdare is anti-Semitic?  I understand it has been smeared for being "white supremacist" by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center (a Progressive if not Communist group).  But I reviewed the Vdare site (the first time I looked at it) and could not find any evidence.
“In fact, there was one article that mentioned Jews, and that was in the context of Europe being dumb enough to facilitate the mass migration of Muslims which is horrible for Jews.”

He replied:

“Guilt by Association.”

That tidbit was certainly lacking in helpful specificity.  So I again responded:

 “Haven't seen it.  More info?”  Guilt by association of who with what, exactly?  Curious minds etc.”

And he replied:

“David Duke, skin heads etc”

OK, that’s a start.  So I wrote back:

“What is their association with Vdare?
“HERE is an article from the ADL [Anti-defamation Defense League].  The ADL article claims that white supremacists support Donald Trump.  That is "guilt by association."  Therefore should we marginalize Trump because people we don't agree with support him?”

I used the Trump example because while I like Trump, I’m waiting for the slander to start.  So he replied:

“Trump never had them at his conventions, bad analogy “

Since I disagreed that it was a bad analogy, I pressed further:

“Trump hasn't been running long  enough for his adversaries to discover that  there are people with inappropriately diverse views attending some of his events.   And since I asked you three times for any basis of substance for your opinion, you FINALLY referred to "them" (whoever 'them' is) attending "his convention."  As a walk in?  By invitation?   As a demonstrator?   All I've heard so  far  is ‘guilt by vague innuendo.’”

To which he replied:

“topic terminated      I don't like being cross examined”

I ended my necessary “cross-examination” but am left with questions:
Did that reader just not feel the issue was worth any further effort, sort of like hit and run?  Is he beginning to doubt his initial opinion and didn’t want to deal?  Or is he so convinced of his initial opinion that he considers any questioning a waste of time – the “I’m too far above you to respond” syndrome? 
There are two things that would have been better than “topic terminated:”  Either admit he didn’t have any hard evidence and admit he could be wrong or provide the hard evidence.  He did neither.
Whatever his reason for doing neither, his comments remain unsubstantiated innuendo.  But he planted the seed of doubt – exactly what the left is after.

*****
I gleaned several lessons from my research and this exchange:

1. Ann Corcoran remains a reputable, well-spoken, and convincing source of information about our immigration problem.
2. I am not willing to discredit a good source of information on a topic of great importance by unsubstantiated innuendo, even from generally like-minded people.  I trust my own research.
3. I could not find any direct evidence from the Vdare website that they were either “white supremacists” or “anti-Semitic.”  To the contrary, the one article I saw that mentioned Jews criticized slack and ignorant European immigration policies for ultimately being harmful to Jews.
4. That there are many left wing, progressive, and Communist web sites and news articles that are hostile to conservative values and the concept of limited and well-controlled immigration.  They will go so far as to attempt to defame any individual and organization who does not further their agenda of destroying our culture and form of governance.
5. That there are people who are not aware of these dangers and who inadvertently and subconsciously fall for some of the many messages they hear that are slanderously misleading or wrong.

If there is documented information out there from reputable sources that clearly indicates that either Ann Corcoran or Vdare are not to be trusted or are comprised of white supremacists or anti-Semites, I would like to hear it.  The reader I cited was unable or unwilling to do this.  All I got was guilt by innuendo – exactly what the left hoped for.

*****
Note:  Since I wrote this piece, I checked with three friends who are politically savvy as well as sensitive and attuned to potential "hate groups."  None of then had anything bad to say about either Ann Corcoran or Vdare.

Migration Jihad: The Islamic Hijra Against Europe and the United States

It’s happening at an increasing pace all over Europe – Muslim migrations through (mostly) open borders.  This is a tactic of Islam embedded throughout Islamic history.  The first Hijra occurred when Muhammad’s small hoard relocated from Mecca to Medina where his military conquests and terrorist jihads began.  It’s been going on for over a decade throughout Europe and is picking up steam.  Britain, and Germany appear to be the most naively hospitable.  Other target nations are Italy, Spain, and France.

Thousands of Muslims pass through Hungary on their way to Germany.

While there may be some unknown percentage of truly persecuted and fearful migrants. at the same time there is most certainly some unknown percentage who are consciously practicing Islamic migration jihad. 

There is evident of the establishment of a number of homegrown jihad terrorist camps around the United States.  Similar camps and cells have likely been established throughout Europe where Muslims have immigrated en masse.

The Hijra to America is described in great detail in THIS book by Ann Corcoran “Refugee Resettlement – and the Hijra to America.”   Ann provides a brief video description of the threat of Islamic Hija.

It’s interesting that when Ann Corcoran’s name is Googled, (try it HERE) many of the hits are from those who slander her and call her a racist and bigot including the Southern Policy Law Center and other progressive and Communist front groups.  This is all a part of the left’s partnership with Muslim leaders and their Islamic Hijra – migration jihad.

The Prime Minister of Hungary recognizes the threat from Islamic immigration during their “Ottoman Experience.”  His country suffered the humiliation of 150 years of Islamic occupation in the 1500’s resulting from a similar “refugee” invasion.  That has motivated his nation to carefully and forcefully protect their border and usher the Islamic migrants through their nation to more hospitable and likely foolish destinations like Germany and Britain.

This video describes his concern.

Pam Geller describes in greater detail what Hungary went through, HERE.

What can we do about this immigration jihad coming to America?  Ann Corcoran has some answers.  The Prime Minister of Hungary provides a good example.

But the “Proactive Award” goes to Australia and their immigration policy.

The apologists for unfettered immigration pull the “compassion” card with photos of overturned boats and dead bodies on the beach.  Australia’s policy exudes compassion by making it clear to ALL potential immigrants that if they arrive on Australia’s shores WITHOUT going through their immigration regimen, they will NOT be welcomed and will be sent home.  This policy results in very few if any attempts in the past few years of Muslim migration jihad (Hijra) coming from the Asian Islamic hotspots of Indonesian or southwest China.

Here is one of their public relations videos that drives this point home. 

Breitbart further explains Australia’s immigration policy HERE.

Here are two questions to ponder:

1) Why don’t the half dozen or so Muslim nations in the region commit to take in their fellow Muslim migrants?  What about Saudi Arabia, Eqypt, Qatar, Kuwait, United Emirates, Jordan, Turkey?  Most of those are very rich nations. 

2) Which US presidential candidate is most likely to implement a strong immigration policy like Australia’s?

RINOS stuck in “radical” Islamic minutia…

How many Islamic radicals can fit on the head of a pin?

That may as well have been the question posed by Hugh Hewitt to Trump and Fiorina, although not exactly.

Hewitt asked,

“I’m looking for the next commander-in-chief, to know who Hassan Nasrallah is, and Zawahiri, and al-Julani, and al-Baghdadi. Do you know the players without a scorecard, yet, Donald Trump?”

Trump answered,

“No.  You know, I’ll tell you honestly, I think by the time we get to office, they’ll all be changed. They’ll be all gone,” he said. “I knew you were going to ask me things like this, and there’s no reason, because, No. 1, I’ll find, I will hopefully find Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the pack.”

“I will be so good at the military, your head will spin. But obviously, I’m not meeting these people. I’m not seeing these people…”

Politico and other RINO outlets see this as a Trump misstep.  They look at minutia  while Trump is looking at the bigger, strategic picture.

Others see it more productively HERE.  This is Trivial Pursuit compared to strategic understanding.

The US failed in Vietnam and more recently in Afghanistan because the leaders were entrenched in micro-managing those wars – creating untenable “rules of engagement”, and prohibiting the commanders from being proactive in the week to week changes in enemy leadership and force structure.  Apparently, The Party wants to continue that tradition by expecting candidates to rattle off names and roles of this week’s Islamo Nazi leaders.  These Islamic leaders change month to month and will more than likely be irrelevant by January 2017.

Carly Fiorina apparently saw the question coming and gave a more direct answer.  Knowing this type of detail at this point in time is nice, but how essential is it, really?

We need a Commander in Chief that is a quick learner and sees the big picture, in this case, that Islam breeds radical leaders of terror groups daily –and more important, will act on it.  Trump is likely to act – decisively.  

Islamic leaders are like the moles in “Whack-a-Mole”:  They pop up, get killed, and pop up again with a different name, but with the same Islamo-fascist mission:  Promote hate of the West and Israel, and do all they can to terrorize and destroy us. 

If Trump, or any candidate gets the connection between Islam and so-called “radical” Islamic terror group leaders, I will be happy.  That will be an absolutely refreshing change from what we have in the Whitehouse today.

Melting Pots, Unity, and Prosperity

“Cultural Diversity” became the open borders slogan dejure beginning roughly two to three decades ago.  I wonder which group of illegals invented that one.  Anyway, those words morphed into the open borders, free trade, one-worlder battle cry.  “Out of many, one” consequentially became “out of one, many,” ushering in reversal of two centuries of both unity and prosperity.

The idea of “the great melting pot” was good for a couple  hundred years.  The great melting pot concept has been assumed to be universal and perpetual.  Wrong!  That concept definitely has a limited shelf life.  How come, you ask?  Because the conditions that allowed it to work have changed – a lot.  What conditions are those? 

During the period when the melting pot concept was most loved and most productive, the United States was in a uniquely fast growing and prosperous period of its development.  There were vast areas of the continent to be explored and developed.  There were tremendous quantities and a wide array of resources to be cut down, dug out, sucked up and exported.  There were extensive transportation systems to be built, especially the rail and highway systems.  Manufacturing was blooming, taking advantage of our natural resources, national enthusiasm, and yes, cheap immigrant labor.   In the 20th century we were the industrial version of today’s China.

Lo and behold, all of those things have changed.  We are now in a self-declared and self-imposed stage of “sustainable growth” which means we slowed way down from our most prosperous century.  Our exploration and development of our wilderness is done. Our extraction of natural resources have leveled off and in many cases declined.  The rails and highways are built.  Yes, we need to rebuild some of our infrastructure, but does that require a million more immigrants?  Our industry has been in decline for 50 years.  1970’s economics classes proclaimed a natural course of national prosperity evolved from an “agrarian” to an “industrial”, to a “service”, and ultimately to a “information” society.  Hmm, what happens then?

Now that we are a “information society” our unemployment rate has hovered near recession levels.

And here is where the normalcy bias kicks in, where historical inertia kills:  We still insist on being the world’s great melting pot.  Cultural diversity insists on reigning supreme.  Open borders are more open than ever.  Immigration by any means possible is enabled by our government.

What great transportation or industrial expansion is calling for all these immigrants?  What great scientifically- or technologically-trained brains are being filtered through our non-existent immigration process?

The “Land of Opportunity” is being transformed into a land of cut-throat gangs, disenchanted college grads, and an out of control social welfare system draining the life-blood out of our economy.

The “great melting pot” remains an endearing concept to many, including a few Republican candidates.  They are oblivious to the changes that have caused it to be a concept whose time has come and gone.  We need to take a multi-decade breather and consolidate what we have before we lose it all to a nation of 3rd world unassimilated warring tribes.

The gen X and Y crowd need to get a handle on all of the above quickly, because their own future sense of well-being hangs in the balance.

The 10 New Taboos That Traumatize Our Nation…

Politicians of late have become known for avoiding, dismissing, or being downright hostile toward a number of traditional ideological preferences of Americans.  The disdain toward most of these  preferences has been adopted by many Republicans and even many so-called conservatives.  It’s as if our leaders have ceased being proud of success of our nation – and maybe even consider many of these national characteristics as excessively prideful or mean spirited.

Here is the short list of 10 taboos promoted by the political elite … 

Nationalism. A belief that we must distinguish ourselves as a distinct, successful and proud nation. 

Most of the political elite believe we need to suppress our nationalist tendencies.  That may offend someone, somewhere, somehow.  They tell us it is less important to be a nation and more important to believe we are part of the world.

Patriotism.  The outward demonstration of love and celebration of our nation and what it represents. 

To political elites, patriotism is “over the top” and may be incendiary to those not so inclined.  They feel our nation has been too evil to celebrate.  Only radical patriot militias and clueless Tea Partiers do that.

Guns.  Great for self defense.

But many politicians hate guns because they kill.  They don’t distinguish between the gun and the user.  Lawbreakers kill, not guns.  They believe “guns, bad; more control over all citizens, good.”

Border security. Controlled entry based on enforced criteria that allows entry by those who are most likely to benefit our nation, and denies entry to those who are most likely to harm our nation. 

Our political elites hate border security for several reasons.  First, they are in bed with the US Chamber of Commerce, controlled by big business, who want cheaper labor and lower the wage rates across the board.  Democrat elites want the future votes that illegals promise.  Catholics are bribed by the guilt wrought by the Church and its Marxist-inspired Pope to feed and provide for the world, which, by the way, is a faulty doctrine.  Many others are of the faulty belief the most immigrants have strong family values that will strengthen our own culture.  So let them all in – no problem.

Identifying our enemies.  Understanding which nations, ideologies, or groups benefit our national interests and which ones don’t.  Enemies might be nations (Iran, Syria, even Saudi Arabia), drug cartels, street gangs, or a misguided political movement – the Black Lives Matter, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot and the “Occupy movement” come to mind. 

Our leaders, especially the Democrats, have found it impossible to call out these dividers and destroyers, both nationally and domestically.

Facts about Islam.  The fact being that Islam, the religion and ideology, is a threat to the civilized world.

This is a subcategory of “identifying our enemies” but deserves separate treatment.  The vast majority of elites in office, and most candidates, believe that Islam is just another religion.  They insist that Islamic jihadists and Islamic terrorists, either as individuals (“lone wolves”), or as coalitions like ISIS, have anything to do with Islam or, at best, are radical off-shoots of Islam.  Most do not recognize that the orthodox religion of Islam (like Nazism) informs and encourages the vile actions and promises we see Muslims engage in every day.

Defense of Christianity.  Defending the right of Christians to practice their religion at home, at church, and at their workplace without fear of violence, litigation or other form of persecution, both in the United States and in other nations.

Our leaders seem oblivious to the plight of Christians in Middle East nations, especially where Islam is advancing.  At home, there is little support for Christians living their faith either as an employee or as a business owner.

Promotion of Morality. Standards of behavior based on traditional Judeo-Christian norms that are believed by many to have been the basis for and prerequisite to making our nation great.

Our elites increasingly distance themselves from this historic association of morality and success as a nation and increasingly promote not just multiculturalism, but multi-morality as well.  Traditional morality is considered bigoted and old fashioned.

Personal responsibility, initiative, perseverance, hard work. These are all personal qualities that  breed personal and national success.  Now these qualities are considered by many to be chains of oppression.  Why should people be required to be personally responsible and work if the government can develop a program for them?  Congress and the President continue to reward citizens and non-citizens alike for not working with government EBT cards, subsidized or free health, free lunches, perpetual unemployment payments, and 1,000 other welfare programs and handouts.  Additional free stuff like “free college education” is being proposed all the time.  What’s next?

Speaking truth boldly, without apology.  Even if the truth offends someone. This is the essence of the reason for our First Amendment – freedom of speech.

The political elite have mastered the art of political correctness – described by one sage as the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.  Truth is avoided because it might offend someone.  People are losing jobs over expressing the truth.  Political candidates are ridiculed as buffoons or haters for speaking the truth boldly.

 

So, there the are, the top ten taboos of the political class.

These taboos have been raging in the Democratic party for many years.  Among Republican candidates and office holders, they have received positive lip service over the last few years.  However, note this:  Lip service only, with no energy or action behind it.  In fact, most Republican candidates and office holders have demonstrated their hostility to most of these ideological values still cherished by most Americans.

This current election cycle has demonstrated this sad and disappointing fact in spades.

Trump provides the best case study.  If you followed his campaign thus far, he has come down on the nation’s and citizens side of every one of these issues.  He either was the first to initiate discussion, or has so far been the only one to highlight the problem.  The result?  A chorus of name calling by the entrenched politicians and media, including so-called “conservatives.”

If you wonder why the proposals by Carson, Cruz, and Trump are not readily endorsed by other candidates and why they haven’t already been carried out by the current Republican office holders, look no further than their disdain toward many of these values still held true and dear by the average Joe on the street.

Conservatives in Name Only (CINOs) Against Trump…

En Masse.

Conservatives in name only (CINO), aka “C-no evil” are coming out of the woodwork.

 

I monitor a number of news outlets, most of them conservative.  The Weekly Standard, FOX, National Review, all have their political commentators.  It seems that a good number of those commentators have it in for Trump.

I don’t know all their names, but here are a few among the better known working for conservative news outlets I used to respect:

• William Kristol, Weekly Standard
• Christopher Caldwell, Weekly Standard
• Fred Barnes, Editor, Weekly Standard
• Charles Krauthammer, National Review and FOX News – no good word for Trump
• George Will, National Review, ditto Trump
• “Judge” Napolitano, FOX News, claims Trump is wrong on 14th amendment
• Meghyn Kelly, FOX News, clearly has it in for Trump with her sexist questions
• Bill O’Reilly, FOX, brainwashed by Napolitano about anchor babies and 14th amendment

This is just a sampling of the names who believe Trump is barely fit for dog catcher, never mind President of the United States.

What are their reasons.  You can’t fault Trump for any of following:

• He has been a huge success in business
• He knows how to negotiate
• He raised a great family
• His thousands of employees have had nothing bad to say; most praise him as an employer
• He has been leading a very successful campaign so far
• His positions check off the majority of conservative issues
• He has been an effective and highly motivated speaker and campaigner
• He has demonstrated excellent leadership qualities

So why the great slander attacks against Trump.

Most of it, I believe, has to do with Trump’s strong “can do” position on immigration.  They C-no evil in our current open borders.  It benefits their constituencies and financial interests.  There is depressing (to me) evidence that more conservatives than most of us realized have bought into the mainstream open borders policy – the policy that erases the distinction between Democrats and Republicans – the policy that says “no can do”; more correctly, their position of “no want to do” regarding immigration enforcement.

 

If ever there was a “coming out” of true attitudes toward strong borders and controlled immigration, Trump revealed the insidious devils among these CINOs.

Of course, there is also a fear, jealousy, suspicion, disdain for anyone as confident of himself as Trump is.  Call it “ego.”  Call it “drive.”  Whatever.  But many people feel intimidated by it.

But all in all, there is a fear that Trump will effectively control immigration.  There are many more CINOs than I ever imagined who are NOT with the American people on this issue.  There are many more CINOs than I ever imagined who will be whining if one Mexican baby is sent back to Mexico with its parents.  Be ready for it.

This, for me, answers the question in stark relief:  Why have our elected majority Republicans – our great hope for our future - failed to be effective in Congress and against an out of control president? 

The answer:  They are full of crap.  Liars.  Deceivers.  They outdo Islamists in their mastery of deceit.  And that is saying something.

Just to be fair, there are a number of conservative news outlets that have either remained neutral or who have written positive articles about Trump.  Here are a few…

• Drudge Report
• Breitbart
• Newsmax
• World Net Daily
• Front Page Magazine
• Liberty News
• Ann Coulter
• Wayne Alan Root

There are others.  But the shocker for me is the number of CINO outlets and CINO commentators that stand with FOX News, the Republican annointeds, and the Democrats in wanting to destroy Trump’s candidacy.

Speaking of Breitbart, HERE is a great article on “low information” callers phoning in on Breitbart News radio on Saturday.

 

Well, then, I guess I’m a “Nativist”…

What is a nativist?

Definition 1:  Those who wish to protect the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants; supporters of the policy or practice of preserving or reviving an indigenous culture.  Those who support the political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants.

Definition 2:  What many Republicans and quite a few on the right are accusing Trump and his supporters of being.

Interestingly, I looked up antonyms for “nativist” on the web site Synonym.com.  And there were none.

So I will make up one.  Here it is:

Definition of anti-nativist:  One who believes in open borders rather than controlled borders, believes in the law of the jungle rather than the law of the land, prefers the uncontrolled infiltration of foreign cultures and languages at the expense of their own, and promotes spending our deficit dollars on supporting those disrespecting our laws and culture.

Dang, the American Indians were nativists, and we are self-flagellating over what we’ve done to them.

Do you find it odd, as I do, that many on the right, (it’s a given that those on the left agree), but many on the right dislike Trump for his blatant nativism.  HORRORS!  A candidate who is a nativist.  A candidate who wants to maintain the rights and privileges of citizens over those who enter the country illegally to suck out our resources.

I didn’t know that “conservatives” could be split over a variety of issues any more than they have been: fiscal vs. cultural; serious vs. unserious; talkers vs. doers, politicians vs. those that really want to do something, etc.  Now we have conservatives being accused of being, uggghhh, nativist, shhh.

And OMG, Trump is not being nice about it.

And I say, it is about damned time someone spoke up!

_____________________________

Diana West has an interesting column on this topic HERE.

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3130/Sex-Jack-Boots-Trump.aspx

Trumps Immigration Policies Personified… and the value of “not nice”

A wonderful thing happened during a Trump press conference in Iowa tonight.   The sequence of events during the question and answer period were amazing and very instructive of what Trump’s immigration policy will be like.

Here is the sequence of events.

Trump was introduced.  He walked onto the stage.  As soon as he took the mike, Jorge Ramos, the news anchor for Mexican and pro-illegal immigration Univision, stood up and began to filibuster the news conference – lecturing, not asking questions.  Trump repeatedly asked that he not speak until he’s called upon.  Ramos kept shouting his questions – more like a speech or rant.  Trump asked him to sit down and wait till he’s called.  Ramos would not relent.   Trump looked over to his left toward security, gave them the nod.  Security came across the room toward Ramos, and escorted him out – all the time Ramos continuing with his rant. 

After Ramos was escorted out of the room Trump said if he behaves, he can come back in.

HERE is the link to the full press conference.

Now here’s the neat part – the event that gives us a preview of Trump’s immigration policy.

20 minutes later, near the end of the presser, Ramos returned to his seat at the front of the room.  Trump recognized him and invited him to ask his questions.  There were 3 or 4 back and forths with Ramos questions, with Trump doing his characteristic “excuse me” several times.  Trump maintained control of the exchange throughout.

Here is the analogy of this exchange with our needed immigration policy which is so great:

The Mexican who promotes illegal immigration personifies the illegal alien.  He comes in and begins to try to take over the agenda of the event not following the rules – forcing his free air time to promote his agenda (substitute “illegal alien taking jobs and social services from Americans”).  Trump proclaims he is out of order – this is not his venue (substitute “country”).  Ramos, the usurper, is escorted out of the room (substitute “deported”).

When Trump is ready (substitute “selective, legal process”) Ramos, the repentant usurper (“illegal alien”), is allowed back into the room (“country”) in a more controlled environment (“legal immigration”).  He is then allowed to speak (following the rules).  Trump controls the discourse and then proclaims that he and Ramos will have many conversations over the coming years (unstated but understood, “while I am president.”)

Many RINO’s and others who see only managed snippets of this event or who don’t give a crap will suggest that Trump was “not nice.”  Funny thing.  Every one of the CNN commentators of the event – CNN mind you – saw Ramos as the offender and Trump the benefactor of this confrontation.

What we may initially perceive as “not nice”, possibly even believing it may make a candidate “unelectable”, in this case turned out as a necessary and positive event for candidate Trump.  I would not be at all surprised if Trump’s battle with FOX, Roger Ailes and Meghn Kelly continues to turn to Trump’s advantage.

We have become so accustomed to “nice” that we have lost all sense of what is worth defending and fighting for.  We have become “nice” to every perverse and evil behavior and to every nation we deal with.  The outcome is a United States in a rapid moral, fiscal, and military decline.  That strategy is not working.  A reversal of the “nice” strategy to a more serious, committed and forceful mode is a deep and growing hunger in the heart of many Americans.  Trump’s strategy satisfies that hunger.

Why the Republican Party Wants to Destroy Trump…

And why they will fail.

____________

Do you get the sense, like I do, that the Republican Party is not happy with Donald Trump?  Not only not happy, but would actually like to destroy his candidacy.  I could link to a few dozen examples of this effort by The Party from just the last week, but I’ll spare the bandwidth and your time.  You already know.

Here are six reasons why The Party wants to destroy Donald Trump…

Immigration:  The Party luvvsss immigration, both legal and illegal.  The Party is arm and arm with the US Chamber of Commerce in ignoring our existing immigration laws so more cheap labor can enter the country.  That is their Job #1.  Neither The Party nor The Chamber cares that immigrants, both legal and illegal, take jobs away from US citizens, black, white, Hispanic, and Asian.  They don’t care that wage rates have become stagnant or declined – in fact this is their objective.

Trump is in their way.  He will be called all sorts of names to derail his immigration promises.  He is the only candidate not making excuses.  He initiated the call to arms regarding illegal immigration and he makes no bones about following through.  The Party hates it because The Party profits from the status quo.  Booo Hisss Party!

Build a wall:  The Party says a wall is evil.  It gives a bad impression.  Is mean spirited.  Is too costly.  Won’t work.  Gee, I wonder why they say this?  Could it be because The Party wants most of all to perpetuate illegal immigration? Nah.  And along comes this guy who is best known for building things, vertical things like walls, saying it’s a piece of cake.  And gosh, this guy isn’t as dumb as The Party would like to make him out to be.  Trump actually realizes that not just a wall, but triple the Border Patrol, electronic surveillance, and other monitoring measures are also necessary.  The Party hates this.  They prefer the status quo.  Boo Hiss Party!

Deportation of “babies”: The Party is aghast at the thought of throwing out the babies with the bath water.  The Honorable Judge Napolitano, the darling of anti-Trump FOX News, has decreed that the 14th amendment gives “anchor babies” automatic US citizenship.  Trumps platoon of attorneys disagree.  They and others point to the portion of the 14th that was omitted by His Honor – just a convenient oversight.

Napolitano version:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The actual version:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Did anyone catch the subtle difference?  If the parents entered illegally, neither they nor the child was subject to the jurisdiction, i.e. the state or federal government.  The Party would rather their interpretation, omitting “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, be the correct one so they can lean on it as an excuse to assure more job-sucking cheap labor for the future.  And I thought Democrats reasons for open borders to get more Democrat voters was sinister.

Here’s a tidbit worth digesting:

Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884):

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized ..."

Trump would rather try and fail.  And he has Constitutional support.  The Party would rather not try at all.  They prefer the status quo.  Boo Hiss Party!

No filter; not “nice”:  Here’s my favorite:  The Party luvvvsss political correctness.  Anyone that does not parse words a la Bill Clinton’s “is is” is not a “real” politician.  On the other hand, I’m not sure Trump even knows how to be politically correct. He’s not “nice.” He actually says what most of us are thinking.  He is a great leader.  He actually prefers the truth.  What a concept!

Not totally faithful to The Party:  Here’s my favorite (can I have two?):  The Party is a machine.  It is as dictatorial and self-serving as a Detroit union and bundled cable channels combined.  Trump doesn’t need the party AND he knows how to negotiate; two big advantages over all other Party candidates.  This really tics off The Party.  Roger That!

Spoiling “the arrangement”:  Most of us get the impression that Jeb Bush was “the chosen”, the party’s “golden boy.”  He is as much the Republican Party man as Hilliary is the Democrat Party girl – yuck, that didn’t come out right.  But Trump is spoiling the arrangement.  Oh well.

Not a politician:  OMG, Trump is not a politician.  He has no political experience.  The sky is falling.  Where is Chicken Little when we need him?  Colonel Sanders, Chick-fil-a, PDQ?  Fortunately for the people in this country who give a darn for the country, Trump is NOT a politician.  He’s a business man; a graduate of The Wharton School of Business.  Would Trump and Carson make a great ticket or what?! 

Here’s a bonus 7th reason:  Trump is not really conservative:  Well now, do we have some Republican RINO Kettle’s calling the Trump Pot Black?  Here’s what’s going on.  Trump is anything but politically correct.  He is aggressively and successfully saying what is on his mind, in spite of the consequences such frank talk usually causes.  He doesn’t care.  That translates in the mind of the average dude on the street as straight talk.  That perception of “straight talk” translates into believability that he is what he says he is:  a conservative.  Juxtapose this against the deceptive declarations and broken promises of Republicans as recently as the 2012 election and the outcome in Congress, and Trump comes across as Mother Teresa compared to el Diablo.

It IS About Islam: The strengths and weaknesses of Beck’s latest book

This new Beck book, published August 18, 2015, is an indication of the evolution of Glenn Beck on Islam.  He’s not quite to full bloom “getting it”, but he’s a lot closer.  Several years ago Beck was more on the side of” radicals” and “terrorists” being an aberration of Islam – that most followers of Islam, Muslims, are good, decent people.  No reason not to trust them.

Now his new book paints a different picture, at least of Islam, if not of Muslims.

Beck invokes the lessons about Islam learned by Thomas Jefferson.  Sure, Jefferson owned a Qur’an which gave him a theoretical introduction to Islam.  The Marines Hymn’s reference to the halls of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli are Jefferson’s “trial by fire” introduction to the reality of Islam as practiced in real, ugly, deadly life.

This time around, Beck portrays Islam as the religion, the ideology, that promotes terror and intolerance.  But his listing of the lies promoted by Islam’s defenders fall short in several areas.  These include, most notably, the Islamic cultural practice if not beloved doctrine of taqiyya (dissimulation, lying, and deceit),  the doctrine of abrogation, cultural pressures in the Islamic communities, the continuing use of the term “radical” as a habitual and mindless modifier of “Islam”, and the reformability of Islam.  These omissions are discussed in greater detail a bit later in this overview.

But first, here are the best parts of the book, the chapters that will benefit the politically correct, brainwashed masses the most.  Beck presents these topics as a series of lies about Islam.  He devotes 4 to 8 pages to each one.  But here is the abbreviated version of each:

Lie #1: “Islam is a religion of peace, and Islamic terrorists aren’t really Muslims.”

George Bush, the Popes, and especially Barack Obama perpetrate this lie, along with most media and many in our intelligence community, the State Department, and academia.  In fact, Islam as a peaceful religion is a propaganda tool.  That notion is based on the earlier parts of the Qur’an, but which have been superseded (abrogaated) by the later passages that reveal the intolerant, militant, and political side of Islam.  These two faces of Islam are practiced at times and places when and where they serve the Muslim and Islam the best.  Both peace and violent jihad are justified by Islam.

Lie #2: “Islam is not much different than Christianity or Judaism.”

A lot of people in the US know so little about any religion that they consider them all the same.  And they defend Islam only because it is a “religion” and all religion must be defended.  Islam is, in fact, a polar opposite of Christianity in many, many ways.  So opposite, in fact, that many theologians consider Islam to be a spawn of Satan.

Lie #3: “Jihad is a peaceful, internal struggle, not a war against infidels.”

There are two forms of jihad:  “Inner struggle” and “outer struggle.”  “Inner struggle” is a personal spiritual striving to shape ones mind to become more like Muhammad.  The “outer struggle” is putting the fruit of the “inner struggle” to work physically, in the world through whatever means necessary, including, and especially, intolerance, violence, terror and conquest.  Know the life of Muhammad and you know Islam, the saying goes.

Lie #4: “Muslims don’t actually seek to live under sharia, let alone impose it on others; there are so many different interpretations of it anyway.”

To the contrary, Sharia is the preferred legal and political system of Muslims when the time is right – when there is enough of a critical mass of Muslims with enough political clout or terrorist power to impose it on the non-Muslim or apostate Muslim.

Lie #5: “America is safe from Sharia law.”

Absolutely not!  We are vulnerable to Sharia, especially if we continue to 1) deny the facts about Islam, and 2) consider the “nice” Muslim next door - those who continue to claim allegiance to Islam by calling themselves “Muslim” - as benign.  I don’t know that Beck has gone this far to be suspicious of all Muslims in the US, but he should.  If they are so moderate as to discard the violent, intolerant parts of the Qur’an  and to become bonafide apostates, then why do they still insist on being called “Muslim?”

Lie #6: “The Caliphate is a fanciful dream.”

The Caliphate is a real and achievable objective of the minds of the most devout Muslims.  And assuming a degree of momentum in Islamic conquests, a world-wide Caliphate is absolutely achievable.

Lie #7: “Islam is tolerant toward non-Muslims.”

According to the Qur’an, once a critical mass of Muslim influence and power is achieved within the region they reside, the flip of the switch toward intolerance is required.

Lie #8: Addressing frustration, poverty, and joblessness in the Muslim world-maybe even climate change – will end terrorism.”

The background of Muslims involved in most terror attacks demonstrates that these things have NOTHING to do with their motive.  It is all about being faithful to their Islamic beliefs.

Lie #9: “Critics of Islam are bigots.”

This belief is a result of political correctness going to absurd extremes.  We can’t even criticize evil anymore without being called a bigot.  Speaking the truth to the ignorant may seem bigoted to the ignorant, but it is not bigoted if it is the truth.

Lie #10: “Islam respects the rights of women.”

Of course from the perspective of devout Muslims, they are just toward women because they are following the edicts of their religion.  But from the perspective of the non-Muslim, Muslim women are abused second class citizens.

Lie #11: “Iran can be trusted with a nuclear weapon.”

Just as trustworthy as a snake can be trusted with its venom.

Lie #12: “The Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, mainstream Islamic group.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of most Islamic terror groups.  It is outlawed in Egypt for good reason and should be outlawed in the US.

Lie #13: “Islam respects freedom of speech.”

Yes, until you suggest anything against Muhammad, the Qur’an, Allah, any Islamic doctrine, or any Muslim.

The last section of the book addresses solutions – what can be done.

The key solution, before anything else can be accomplished is, according to Beck, “identify the enemy.”  This seems so obvious but is so elusive.  Our culture, our government has refused to do this first essential step.  Unfortunately, Beck only goes part way toward identifying the enemy in this book.

Beck suggests that Islam needs to be reformed.  He says non-Muslims cannot do it; Muslims are the only ones who can.

But there are Islamic experts who assert that reforming Islam is impossible.  Why?  The reasons are laid out HERE.

There are several Chapters that are missing from Beck’s book that would not have added more than 15 or 20 pages, but are essential to “knowing the enemy – knowing Islam.”

Taqiyya: This central Islamic cultural predisposition, if not core doctrine of Islam, is not highlighted in Beck’s book.  Taqiyya is the reason why our media and politicians remain clueless of the truth of Islam.  Deception is a well honed skill set of Muslims motivated by their Islamic faith.  Taqiyya is the reason for this being an accurate depiction of “moderate” Muslims:  Today’s “moderate” is tomorrow’s headline.

“Sudden Jihad Syndrome” is what happens when a taqiyya-practicing Muslim decides to practice all Islamic doctrine.  Bill Warner explains this well in the video below:

Abrogation:  The Islamic doctrine that the later written portion of the Qur’an, the portion written in Medina, supersedes and is better than the earlier portion written in Mecca.  Unfortunately, unlike the Bible, the intolerant, violent jihad examples and admonitions are in the later Medina section and the more peace-loving examples are in the earlier Mecca section.  Violence trumps Peace in the Qur’an.  A lengthy explanation of abrogation with examples from the Qur’an is provided HERE.

“Radical” this:  Beck continues the mindless use of the word “radical” preceding “Islam” in several places in his book.  A few pages ought to be devoted to highlight the idiocy of inferring that there is a “radical” and “non-radical” version of Islam, which the use of “radical” before “Islam” implies.  There is no non-radical Islam.  Islam is radical.  Admitting Islam is radical is part of “identifying the enemy” that Beck declares is an essential first step in doing something to overcome the threat posed by Islam.

Reformable:  As stated above, Islam is not reformable.  Beck does admit that Islam is further away from being reformable than it was a decade or two ago.  But he doesn’t delve deeply enough into Islamic texts to come to the clear conclusion that a significant portion of the Islamic Trilogy and historical doctrine and jurisprudence needs to be ripped out for Islam to be reformable.

 

Overall, I would give this book a “B-“.  It’s good to see Beck’s progress in discovering Islam as well as one more well-known person providing at least 80% of the heretofore politically incorrect facts about Islam, and by doing so, risking being called a bigot.  This book is best suited for the person who believes that Islam has been hijacked by a few radicals who have perverted Islam.  Its reading should be supplemented by any number of books by Robert Spencer, Joel Richardson, Bill Warner, Eric Stakelbeck, or THIS one, and by THIS WEBSITE.