Climate change, really?

The Pope’s central theme during his visit to the United States has been “climate change.”

These charts compare recent advances in the human condition with fluctuations in temperature and CO2.  Further explanation is provided HERE.

Question:  Where would you prioritize Climate Change in the following list of world, religious, Christian or Catholic problems?

• Christian persecution in the Middle East – hundreds slaughtered weekly
• Evaporating Biblical morality (homosexuality, porn, government corruption)
• Declining birthrates below replacement level western and industrialized nations
• Decline of family stability
• Worsening racial relations in the US
• Terrorism around the world
• Resurgence of Islamic intolerance and violence
• Instability and wars throughout the Middle East
• Rampant alcohol and drug abuse
• Violent organized drug gangs
• Muslim migration as a tool of conquest
• Disregard of just laws, national order, and stability
• Credit bubble, greed and consumption problem
• National and world debt
• The light-hearted selling of baby parts
• Disrespect for institution of marriage (gay marriage, divorce rate)
• Abortions (1.3 billion worldwide since 1980 – only a tiny fraction due to rape or incest)

Seriously, “climate change?”  It has to do with NONE of the above.

Do you wonder, as I do, why a discredited “global warming” movement, whose name had to be reinvented to “climate change” to avoid embarrassment, is now declared to be the number one priority of the Catholic Church?  I don’t have an answer.  I can only speculate.  Perhaps the Church believes the influence of humanity has a greater impact on earth’s climate than the sun.  Perhaps it is the Church’s way of leveling the prosperity of nations.  Perhaps the Church believes progress, productivity and prosperity are evil.  Has the Church taken a “left tun” with this Pope?  Has the Church forgotten that human productivity reduces poverty.  Is he “anti-Capitalist?”

On this topic, Thomas Sowell has some valuable insights.  I’ve copied them below from his website:

The Left Has Its Pope

Pope Francis has created political controversy, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, by blaming capitalism for many of the problems of the poor. We can no doubt expect more of the same during his visit to the United States.

Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.

There has long been a political left among Catholics, as among other Americans. Often they were part of the pragmatic left, as in the many old Irish-run, big city political machines that dispensed benefits to the poor in exchange for their votes, as somewhat romantically depicted in the movie classic, "The Last Hurrah."

But there has also been a more ideological left. Where the Communists had their official newspaper, "The Daily Worker," there was also "The Catholic Worker" published by Dorothy Day.

A landmark in the evolution of the ideological left among Catholics was a publication in the 1980s, by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, titled "Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy."

Although this publication was said to be based on Catholic teachings, one of its principal contributors, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, said: "I think we should be up front and say that really we took this from the Enlightenment era."

The specifics of the Bishops' Pastoral Letter reflect far more of the secular Enlightenment of the 18th century than of Catholic traditions. Archbishop Weakland admitted that such an Enlightenment figure as Thomas Paine "is now coming back through a strange channel."

Strange indeed. Paine rejected the teachings of "any church that I know of," including "the Roman church." He said: "My own mind is my own church." Nor was Paine unusual among the leading figures of the 18th century Enlightenment.

To base social or moral principles on the philosophy of the 18th century Enlightenment, and then call the result "Catholic teachings" suggests something like bait-and-switch advertising.

But, putting aside religious or philosophical questions, we have more than two centuries of historical evidence of what has actually happened as the ideas of people like those Enlightenment figures were put into practice in the real world — beginning with the French Revolution and its disastrous aftermath.

Both the authors of the Bishops' Pastoral Letter in the 1980s, and Pope Francis today, blithely throw around the phrase "the poor," and blame poverty on what other people are doing or not doing to or for "the poor."

Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things — none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.

Geographic settings are radically different, both among nations and within nations. So are demographic differences, with some nations and groups having a median age over 40 and others having a median age under 20. This means that some groups have several times as much adult work experience as others. Cultures are also radically different in many ways.

As distinguished economic historian David S. Landes put it, "The world has never been a level playing field." But which has a better track record of helping the less fortunate — fighting for a bigger slice of the economic pie, or producing a bigger pie?

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets, and other amenities.

A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.

Pope Francis' own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

_____________

Thomas Sowell, a National Humanities Medal winner, is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author. He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Read more at http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell092215.php3#Joid3IOhwtsyGVhy.99

Muslim pandering and other destructive behaviors…

I was overwhelmed this past weekend by the outrage of the clueless media and politicians, both Democrat and Republican, and their attempts to repress the truth about Islam and what we know for a fact how Muslims are known behave.

How often have we been told “see something; say something” about suspicious behavior?  What would have happened if little Muslim Ahmed’s “clock” was what the school and police thought it might be and they did NOTHING.  It is not as if 14 year old Muslim boys are not known for being trained and encouraged to blow things up.  We all should know that by now.

But no, school officials and police are condemened for doing something when they saw something. 

By the way, what are the chances this whole thing was a set-up, like some airline incidents created by Muslims desiring to discredit those who say something.  Well, it may well have been a set-up.  One expert says little innocent Ahmed’s clock “invention” was nothing more than a disassembled manufactured clock made to look like a bomb timer.  HERE are details of that finding.   Yet this is worthy of an invitation to the White House. 

Is there a problem with any of this?  Nah.  Just because Ahmed’s dad’s main hobby is being a belligerant Muslim activist whose brother runs a trucking company called Twin Towers Transportation, what hidden agenda could they possibly have?  Besides, wasn’t the clock already invented by now?

Next we had the continued media railing against Trump for his appropriate response to the questioner about numerous Muslim training camps sprinkled around the country.  I wrote about that HERE.  Yes, children, we do indeed need to look into that.

And finally, we have the gnashing of Muslim-pandering blind eyeteeth about Ben Carson’s comment that Muslims are not fit to be President of the US.  He explained that Sharia (Islamic law) is part of Islamic doctrine believed by most Muslims.  He explained that Sharia requires legal actions – like beheadings and chopping off of hands for various offenses - that are totally at odds with the freedoms gauranteed by our Constitution.  Therefore, anyone who abides by the Islamic faith is unfit for national office.  Amen to that, Carson.

Carson has been criticized for lumping all Muslims in with those who would destroy our nation.   I shall repeat:  Muslim=Islam=Sharia=against our Constitution.  Simple.

Ted Cruz joined in the condemnation of Carson.  He chose to ignore the fact the Islam is not just a religion, but also a political, economic, social, and military ideology as he defended Islam under the Constitutional banner of being a “religion.”  That “religion” wants to abrogate Cruz’s constitution.

And Trump is still being excoriated for not stupidly assuming Obama is a Christian.  Rubio and others have their faith detectors on overdrive in pronouncing Obama’s “Christian faith”, much as Stephanopoulis did during his notorious Obama Muslim moment.

And no, this is not the moral equivalent of Catholic-bashing in the time of John Kennedy as some Muslim apologists like to portray.  Catholics were not known for beheadings since the 1,500’s and it has never been part of Catholic doctrine.  On the other hand (the one we would have left if we stole something under Sharia) there are dozens of beheadings a week under Sharia in numerous countries, and this practice is very much embedded deep into Islamic doctrine and culture.

So let’s stop the Muslim/Islam-pandering.  There is no moral equivalent in either Catholicism or the rest of Christianity to what is taught, promoted, and practiced by the majority of the Muslim population today.

Oh, yes, the “moderates” you say.  Yes, the “moderates” – the Muslims who are either practicing their doctrine of deception or who might really be benign apostate “in name only” Muslims - the “moderates” who may become tomorrow’s headline or the ones who root for, fund and politic for those who become tomorrow’s headline.  Yes, the “moderates” indeed.

I’ll close this blog by suggesting that those who understand the problem of Islam in this country do all they can to elect new leaders who understand the need to keep our Muslim population to its barest minimum.  Do not do the “bleeding heart” thing of bringing the Syrian Muslim refugees here.  We bear no responsibility and should bear no guilt when several very rich Muslim nations of the Middle East refuse to take in their own people.

It is far better that the migrating hoards be encouraged to improve conditions in their own nations rather than come here with their agenda to impose the same conditions that destroyed their nation.

Muslims and Islam: The “sacred cows” of America…

Media, RINO’s, and Dems rush to ignore facts.

Trump’s failure to mindlessly affirm Obama’s dubious Christian “faith” in response to a question at a “town hall” event has created a firestorm of angst against Trump.

Was the questioner a plant, or was he a legit Trump supporter?  Does it really matter?  The man asked a valid and timely question, despite the blind ignorance of the media and political class about the Islamic elephant in our midst.

Here is the comment from the man who wore a Trump t-shirt at the town hall event:

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims.  You know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Trump reacted in surprise and sarcastically said with a grin,

"We need this question?  This is the first question?"

The man in the audience continued,

"Anyway, we have training camps growing where they want to kill us.  That's my question: When can we get rid of them?"

Trump replied:

"We're going to be looking at a lot of different things.  You know, a lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening. We're going to be looking at that and many other things."

Call me an Islamophobe, but I hope Trump means and does what he just said.

Why do I say that.

Let’s break it down.  There are three components to the above exchange with Trump:

• Obama’s dubious heritage and citizenship
• Obama’s dubious claim of “Christian faith”
• The problem of Muslim military training camps in this country

Trump and many others have demonstrated skepticism of Obama’s US birth and presidential eligibility.  Document forensic experts have conclusively determined that the alleged Obama Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery.  There is no history of Obama’s American heritage.  This is old news.

Why are there skeptics of Obama’s “Christian faith?”  There a many very good reasons.  I’ll recap for those who haven’t added them all up:

1. Obama’s father was Muslim.
2. Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia.
3. Obama changed his name from Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein, his Muslim given name, in 1980 while he was re-discovering himself in college.
4. Obama attended a church for 20 years pastored by a “former Muslim” preaching black supremacism in the spirit of Black Muslims.
5. Islamic doctrine teaches the doctrine of taqiyya – dissimulation and deceit – to further ones Muslim goals and beliefs.  Muslims have been know to claim another faith to further their advantage, a practice now ongoing among Syrian migrants to gain access to European nations.
6. Obama stated, wistfully, that the sound of the call to Islamic prayers at sunset are the prettiest sounds on earth.
7. Until “corrected” by his interviewer, Obama referred to “my Muslim faith.”
8. Obama appointed more Muslims to positions of high advisory positions in the federal government than all previous presidents combined.
9. Obama celebrates Muslim holidays and special events more than those of any other religion.
10. Obama’s foreign policy supports and rewards Islamic nations and groups while dissing the enemies of these nations and groups.
11. Obama strongly promoted a one-sided agreement that facilitates Iran’s further development of a nuclear weapon over the objections of many in the military, Congress, and intelligence community of the US.
12. Obama defends Islam by directing agencies to pretend that terror performed by Muslims in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
13. Obama has shown little regard to Christianity; has said little about rampant persecution of Christians in the Middle East by Muslims and Muslim nations.
14. Obama has done everything a devout Muslim would do short of personally engaging in violent jihad.

Do we need more evidence?

And finally, are there really Muslim training camps in the US?  The evidence HERE says ABSOLUTELY.  And HERE.  And HERE.  And sites like THIS ONE dismiss this evidence as Islamophobia, just like the media howling at Trump for not chastising the very valid question the man at the town hall was asking.

HERE is the complete CNN story.  Scrolling down on that link is another link to the alleged “Islamophobia problem.”  The REAL Islamophobia problem is the propensity of our media to remain ignorant of the Islamic doctrine and threat to our nation.  The real “Islamophobia problem” is calling Islamophobia a problem.  It is not a “problem”.  It is a legitimate concern and warning that requires an urgent wake up call.

Last Night’s Debate Results Based on Three National Polls…

Here they are, from Newsmax, Drudge Report, and the Right Scoop.  Any surprises?

Candidate	Newsmax	Drudge	Right Scoop
Donald Trump	46.26%	51.00%	47.34%
Carly Fiorina	20.11%	22.00%	20.83%
Sen. Marco Rubio	9.32%	6.00%	8.76%
Dr. Ben Carson	9.22%	4.00%	5.67%
Sen. Ted Cruz	5.67%	6.00%	4.78%
Gov. John Kasich	3.10%	1.00%	1.95%
Gov. Chris Christie	2.14%	1.00%	2.24%
Gov. Jeb Bush	1.45%	1.00%	2.25%
Sen. Rand Paul	1.27%	4.00%	5.26%
Gov. Mike Huckabee	1.04%	1.00%	0.58%
Gov. Scott Walker	0.41%	1.00%	0.34%

I am surprised by how low Walker, Huckabee, Paul, Bush and Christie are.  Kasich deserves to be low.  It’s really good to see the bad response to Bush.

Fiorina did very well, but our household’s impression was she was too  rigid, robotic, no “soft side”, no smile.

I’m impressed by Rubio, but still haunted by his immigration faux pas.

Trump was the center of attention with 44% of the questions focusing on his previous remarks.  Were these “attacks” or just points of reference for discussion?

Trump needs to bone up his details, his substance on  several of the issues.  He said he is coming out with his new tax plan in three weeks.  He needs to say more about foreign policy.  On the other hand, he could merely emphasize his negotiating skills (yet again) and suggest that all the other candidates who give away their foreign policy detail are poor negotiators, as he would say “…and by the way, the other candidates are telling our enemies exactly what we will do – you don’t do that when you negotiate.”

I really appreciate the wisdom of whoever said “I will refuse to negotiate with Iran – you don’t negotiate with those people.”

Cuss words, political correctness, Washington Kool-Aid, the Papacy and why we do stupid things….

What do political correctness, Washington Kool-Aid, and the Vatican have in common?

Answer:  They all result in stupid outcomes.

I’ll start with the evolution of English cuss words.  The evolution of English cuss words bridge the gap between moral and political correctness.

For example, using the words God or Jesus in certain contexts is considered swearing – also known as using the Lord’s name in vane.

To overcome that problem, we have reverted to “gosh” or “gosh darn” or “golly gee.”

Certain sex acts used as cuss words are also common.  The “f” word is prominent among them.  To overcome that problem, many have reverted to words like “freakin’” or “friggin” to try to be more polite.

I once used the term “freakin’” in a blog and was called on it for being profane.  The bridge between “morally correct” and “politically correct” was crossed.  For me, it was a bridge too far.

I never got around to reminding my accuser of a hundred similar evolved terms that substitute for the original cuss words.  An oldie but goodie is “dag nabbit.”  You can guess what that stood for.  How bad is that considered to be nowadays?  HERE is a list of 140 of them for starters.  Most of us wouldn’t be able to effectively express ourselves at all if my censor had her way.  Blacklisting those terms is more “political correctness” than “moral correctness.”

Moving on to Washington DC Kool-Aid.  I have noticed in my writing blogs that it is easier to express my true opinions  to the anonymous world than it is saying the same things to a friend or neighbor who I think might disagree with me.  That’s a bit of the Stockholm Syndrome in action.  Closeness can even stifle political expression completely.  I have a friend who is commanded by his wife to totally chill on politics.  And he obeys.

Life in Washington DC is much the same way.  A candidate running for office has certain opinions that his local electorate ultimately relates to.  No problem.  Everyone is simpatico.  He gets himself elected.  When he gets to Washington, he finds a different fish pond than his electorate was in.  They have a totally different value system.  The newly elected is a fish out of water for awhile – until he has to jump into the big DC pond to survive.  Suddenly the elites, the liberals, the socialists, the progressives, the Communists, the Chamber of Commerce, Big Business lobbyists and others with other-worldly beliefs are all his close neighbors.  This new fish in this strange new pond needs to adjust, and quickly.  His Stockholm Syndrome kicks into overdrive.   Overdrive is his newfound urge to go along to get along.  Poof, there goes his former constituency.  “To hell with them – I’m with the big boys now,” he says.  He drank the Kool-Aid.

Speaking of being isolated in a fully insulated pond like Washington DC, I bring you the Vatican – or more specifically, the Papacy.  Problem number one:  The current Pope is from a purely Socialist pond in South America.  Problem number two:  He is transferred to a totally insulted  and out of touch nation-state, the Vatican, half a world away. Is it any wonder why the Pope urges Catholics in Europe should take in Syrian migrants?  It doesn’t matter that the great majority are Muslim, that Islam promotes “migration jihad” and that some unknown number of them are known to be ISIS-related jihadists.

Is it any wonder  why the Pope supports the ill-conceived Iran nuke agreement on one hand and urges Israel to get rid of its nukes on the other?  It doesn’t matter that all of Israel’s neighbors hate Jews, are striving to eradicate Israel from the face of the planet as “Job #1”, and one of Israel’s neighbors is in the process of building nukes to accomplish that.  Pope out of touch, ya think?

The icing on the cake is the Pope’s visit to the White House to meet and interact with an invited transvestite, a gay Bishop, and a pro-abortion Nun.  Some say Obama, the divider in chief, did the inviting without knowledge of the Pope.  It doesn’t matter that these behaviors have been anathema to The Church for 2,000 years and pandering to these behaviors is likely to create a greater schism.  Pure Obama.

Yes indeed, political correctness does cause people to do stupid things.

Why the slogan “Support Your Local Police” doesn’t work in all places…

The John Birch Society has a wonderful bumper sticker:  “Support Your Local Police.”  I agree with that admonition.  Everyone I know in my small world supports it.  Support not only envisions support by the local population, but also encompasses the idea of police departments remaining independent of state and federal control.  As we’ve seen in several recent events, the “local” police are not trusted and have fallen under state or federal control.

The idea of “support your local police” also goes hand in hand with the idea of “support your local LAWS.”  It’s amazing how closely related these two concepts are.  When local police are not supported, neither are the local laws.

Unfortunately, the reality is not everyone agrees with enforcing local laws OR supporting local police.  In fact the scales are tipping nationwide.

Here is the breakdown of who do not support their local police:

• Large numbers in metropolitan areas larger than 500,000 don’t
• A large percentage of blacks don’t
• Most Muslims don’t
• Most anti-gun people don’t
• Big government proponents don’t
• Sanctuary city proponents don’t
• Illegal immigrants don’t
• Drug cartels don’t
• Most criminals don’t

Criminals and drug cartels are a no-brainer.  So let’s move on to the others.

Illegal immigrants and sanctuary city proponents are allies.  Neither want the laws enforced.  After all, illegals are already criminals.  Sanctuary city proponents nullify the laws to pretend no one is a criminal.  And obviously, where illegals exist outside of sanctuary cities, they have no reason to support their local police or local laws.

Big government proponents look down on local governments as Neanderthals who don’t know any better.  This represents many in state and particularly in federal government, especially in the legal and social service arenas.  The map above does not show all sanctuary cities.  For a live map that shows dozens more, click HERE.

The anti-gun crowd, at all levels, generally don’t like police because – you guessed it – they carry guns.  The unarmed Bobbies of Britain are probably held as role models.

Muslims don’t like police or laws because deep down inside, usually well concealed, they don’t like much about our culture, laws, or government and can’t wait to impose Islamic Sharia.

A large percentage of the black population remain racist.  Look at the percentage of blacks who voted for Obama – for no reason other than he was seen as “black.”  As racists, they believe they can do no wrong.  Therefore they are resentful of both the laws and the police when they break the law.

Large segments of the population in the largest metropolitan areas are generally on welfare, a minority, and pandered to by liberal politicians.  Their socialization skills fall below those required for those residing in “a nation of laws.”  So both the politicians and their subjects dislike laws as well as police whose job is to enforce those laws.

So, while in my neck of the woods I and my friends and acquaintances support our local laws and local police, I understand that the concept of supporting either is complex.  It is not simply a quick conversation at a McDonald’s with a stranger and a bumper sticker that says “support your local police.”  It isn’t even a matter of having a conversation with my State Representative to promote the concept because my district already supports those things.

Unfortunately our nation has devolved into a population that prefers lawlessness and disrespect for authority, even at the highest levels of government.  Each group of rebels have their own excuses.  And many in government support and promote those excuses.  Those of us who still believe in supporting law and order are barely a declining majority.  We are called bigots, haters, and Nazi’s for wanting to support the police and our laws.  Very strange indeed.

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.