Archive for the ‘Obama’s America’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain

March 24, 2016

Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain, Front Page Magazine, Ann Coulter, March 24, 2016

brussels-airport

Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. … We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”

Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called him “foolish,” and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump’s remarks went “against everything we stand for and believe in.” (Based on Trump’s crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what “we” believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: ‘TRUMP’S NOT WRONG — WE CAN’T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS’: Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: ‘THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON’: Policemen Back Trump’s Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: ‘TRUMP IS RIGHT!’ Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. … There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Sharia law … There is something bad going on.”

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: “Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels.” News is no longer about communicating information; it’s about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he’s right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “Better dead than rude.”

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, “deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium’s beloved beer and chocolate.” Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don’t think he was knocking Belgium’s beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week’s bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, “We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.”

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, “I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning …” Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: “Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism.”

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster — something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn’t natural at all. It’s the direct result of government policy.

It’s as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it’s not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America — a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s revenge.”

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don’t kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are … Muslims.

What we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Don’t attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are … Muslims.

And what we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again … Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms — because the one and only lesson we’ve learned from Hitler is: DON’T DISCRIMINATE!

Categories: Brussels terror attack, Donald Trump, Europe, Immigration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Multiculturalism, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

American Fascists

March 24, 2016

American Fascists, Bill Whittle Channel via You Tube, March 23, 2016

(What will America be like in a few years? It’s unpleasant to contemplate. — DM)

 

Categories: Bill Whittle, Donald Trump, Education, Fascism, Leftists, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

No More Hug-A-Terrorist

March 23, 2016

No More Hug-A-Terrorist, Gatestone Institute, Raheel Raza, March 23, 2016

(Please see also, Islamic Reformation and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. — DM)

♦ How hard is it to understand that radical Islamist jihadis have declared war on the West? In simple English this means: they will find you and kill you wherever and whenever they can.

♦ Time and again, many of us concerned Muslims have highlighted the dangers of political Islam/Islamism, which stems from one of three sources: the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi/Salafism or Khomeinism.

♦ The West has been asleep at the wheel, waffling about how to address the issue with “sensitivity.” Calling out the truth should never be subject to political correctness.

♦ The world needs to take the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to task and challenge it about what it is doing to stem the tide of violence emanating from the Muslim world. The world needs to understand that ISIS is not trying to set up a Caliphate. OIC is the Caliphate.

The terrorist attacks at an airport and Metro station in Brussels has by now claimed at least 34 dead and 250 injured.

Shocking, sickening and appalling — but surprising? No.

How hard is it to understand that radical Islamist jihadis have declared war on the West? In simple English this means: they will find you and kill you wherever and whenever they can.

Why? Because the Islamists have pinpointed the West to be “Dar al Harb” (land of war), a concept that allows them to justify killing anyone on this land. You, me and everyone in between — from the USA across to Canada, the UK and Europe.

Just this year, there have been terrorist attacks all over the globe, including Paris, Turkey, San Bernardino, Israel, Toronto, Ivory Coast and yesterday in Belgium. Whether carried out by groups or so called “lone wolves,” these attacks are not isolated and have one thing in common.

They are all the result of a dangerous, violent and sick ideology. Time and again, many of us concerned Muslims have highlighted the dangers of political Islam/Islamism which stems from one of three sources: the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi/Salafism or Khomeinism. This ideology has been on the rise for 35 years while the West has been asleep at the wheel, waffling about how to address the issue with “sensitivity.” Calling out the truth should never be subject to political correctness.

How are we Muslims dealing with this ongoing terror in the name of our faith? Social media tells us a lot. There are the usual deniers and apologists; there is a comparison that “while we show solidarity for Brussels, we must simultaneously remember every other country of the world,” hence watering down the impact of the horror and carnage that has just taken place in Belgium and showing a rancid face of inhumanity and deflection from the real issue.

Then the victim ideology kicks in and it’s all about the fear of a backlash. I say let’s speak out, take responsibility and deal with the backlash — it will be worse if we remain silent.

Added to this are people like the repulsive British politician, George Galloway, who says Europe is to blame for what has happened. No one wants to touch the real issue.

The real issue is that this violence will continue and get much worse unless all of us stand up and acknowledge the ugly virus within us and say no to armed jihad. All of us, in once voice, need to denounce and condemn armed jihad as a seventh-century construct, not applicable in this day and age.

How have media addressed the issue? They immediately brought in “experts” to analyze the motives of the attackers to smithereens. There is nothing left to analyze. It is simple: It is a war against us. Let us stop the talking heads and take some action.

Political correctness should not trump the truth.

To bring home this point: Following an attack on two Canadian military officers in Toronto on March 14, 2016, I was invited the next day by a local TV station to comment. At first, the media did not wish to publish the words spoken by the attacker: “Allah made me do it.” The next day, the news reported that the attacker had “mental health issues.” Again, no surprise here. Mental health issues are a good “fallback.” But I said on the news that if a person has the wherewithal to find a specific military location and attack two officers, he is capable of being a terrorist.

Once again, we failed to connect the dots. The CTV News clip of my interview never made it to the internet. Are they not able to handle the truth?

1522Following a terrorist attack on two Canadian military officers in Toronto last week (left), the media initially did not wish to publish the words spoken by the attacker: “Allah made me do it.” Following yesterday’s bombings in Brussels, the media immediately brought in “experts” to analyze the motives of the attackers. There is nothing left to analyze. It is simple: It is a war against us.

Our leadership, meanwhile, has developed a philosophy of “hug-a-terrorist” and deflecting the conversation into a politically correct Kumbaya mode.

On October 22, 2014, I wrote an open letter to Canadians on my blog. In this I made some clear suggestions about the dangers we face, and solutions. The backlash was fast and furious, not only from Muslims but from bleeding-heart white liberals — those who do not help our cause by promoting the victim ideology.

So, once again we are standing where we were many years ago, but worse off because hundreds more civilians have been slaughtered in the radical Islamist war against the West.

Countering this armed jihad is our responsibility because the problem emanates from the House of Islam and the lives of our next generations are at stake here.

There are solutions. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has a membership of 57 Muslims states spread over four continents, is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations. The world needs to take the OIC to task and challenge it about what it has done or is doing to stem the tide of violence emanating from the Muslim world. The world needs to understand that ISIS is not trying to set up a Caliphate. The OIC is the Caliphate. Its members conveniently look away in face of blatant terrorism because their only focus is to dislodge Israel and condemn the West.

We cannot let the OIC speak for us. We face a simple choice: We can either speak out ourselves or wait for Mr. Trump to be elected and he will do it for us.

Raheel Raza is president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow and founding member of the Muslim Reform Movement.

Categories: Foreign policy, Islam - the religion of war, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamism, Islamophobia, Moral equivalence, Obama's America, OIC, Political correctness
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump: We have to be very careful who comes into our country

March 22, 2016

Trump: We have to be very careful who comes into our country, Fox News via You Tube, March 22, 2016

Categories: Belgium, Donald Trump, Europe, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Dunford: U.S. Military Isn’t Ready Across the Board

March 22, 2016

Dunford: U.S. Military Isn’t Ready Across the Board, Washington Free Beacon, , March 22, 2016

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers Tuesday that the United States military currently is not prepared or capable across all the service branches of addressing the threats facing the country.

Dunford gave his assessment of the military’s readiness while testifying before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Defense Secretary Ash Carter on the fiscal year 2017 proposed defense budget.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R., Texas), chair of the committee, first listed evidence he has heard from other senior military officers to illustrate how the military does not have sufficient readiness capabilities across the services.

“Let me just offer a handful of other quotes on the record,” Thornberry told Dunford. “[Marine Corps Commandant] Gen. [Robert] Neller said, ‘Our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training and mission requirements, primarily due to Ready Basic Aircraft shortfalls.’ [Army Chief of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and Gen. [John] Allen have testified [that] less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable forces of readiness. The readiness of the United States Army is not at a level that is appropriate for what the American people would expect to defend them.”

Thornberry then referenced Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James’ testimony from last week in which she said that “less than half our combat forces are ready for a high-end fight… the Air Force is the smallest, oldest, and least ready force across the full spectrum of operations in our history.”

“Do you agree that we have a significant readiness problem across the services, especially for the wide variety of contingencies that we’ve got to face?” Thornberry asked.

“Chairman, I do, and I think those are accurate reflections of the force as a whole,” Dunford said. “From my perspective, there’s really three issues: There are the resources necessary to address the readiness issue, there’s time, and then there’s operational tempo.”

Dunford said that the readiness problem is the result of several years of an “unstable fiscal environment” combined with an “extraordinarily high operational tempo,” or rate of military actions.

The general warned it will take many years to dig out of this situation, but said he is satisfied that the FY 2017 budget meets the fiscal requirements of each service for readiness.

The U.S. cannot buy its way out of the readiness problem this year, Dunford said, because of time and the growing need to deploy resources quickly.

He added that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps will not be sufficiently ready to counter the challenges they need to until around fiscal year 2020, and the Air Force likely will not reach that point until fiscal year 2028.

Beyond resources, time, and operational tempo, Dunford explained that depot-level maintenance has been back-logged in Marine aviation, and likely in other branches as well, contributing to the delay in reaching full readiness.

“I think it’s important for us and for y’all to continue to not only watch this issue but really understand down deeper what’s happening,” Thornberry said. “Statistics are one thing, but you talk to these folks eyeball to eyeball, and the sense of frustration and concern is very evident.”

The military has been steadily downsized over the course of the Obama administration, with the number of active-duty ships in the Navy reduced to pre-World War I levels and the Marine Corps the smallest it has been since the Korean War in the early 1950s. The size of the Army has been reduced as well.

Categories: Department of Defense, Obama and US military, Obama's America, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Op-Ed: Obama’s public face – a political theater of distraction and deception

March 20, 2016

Op-Ed: Obama’s public face – a political theater of distraction and deception, Israel National News, Jeffrey Ludwig, March 20, 2016

In his article “Iran’s Diplomacy for Dummies,” Jonathan Tobin, a totally reasonable individual, again misses the perfidy of Obama’s policies, towards Iran.  We brought to the UN our concerns about Iran testing ballistic missiles being a violation of the Iran deal.  Russia stated flatly that they “would not permit sanctions to be [re-] imposed because Iran’s actions did not violate UN Security Council resolutions.”  Samantha Powers expressed frustration and dismay at the Russian reaction to our concerns.

However, Amb. Powers’ comments against the Russians in the UN were nothing more than a charade. Her comments were a pretense of being offended by Russia.  The Obama administration was just playing politics with the issue, and using Samantha as the actress to give voice to our “concern” in this one-act political theater. We pretend to be standing up for real-time enforcement of the Iran deal, and then blame the Russians when enforcement is prevented. Whereas the truth is there was no real expectation or desire for enforcement by Obama and his lady advisors from day one of the negotiations or our sign-off.  Powers and Obama are merely trying to appear earnest in their implementation of the treaty (which they falsely called an agreement).

The charade (i.e., playacting) can be seen at work over a variety of political scenarios.  These bits of play acting are the modus operandi of the Obama administration.  They seek to reverse the idea found in Shakespeare’s drama “Hamlet.”  There we find the line, “The play’s the thing. Wherein [to] catch the conscience of the king.”   For the Obama inner clique, the principle is “the play’s the thing” to deflect our understanding of the king’s dereliction of duty for God and country.

We see this playacting during a recent interview.  During the course of the interview, Obama tried to appear measured and sincere in his thinking.  For example, he says to the interviewer, “Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence.”  He presented himself as a wise Solon who prefers negotiation to force. Here he may not be completely duplicitous but simply be in denial.

Many so-called peaceniks on the left fail to see the cowardly and traitorous underpinnings (motives) of their pseudo-pacifism. Thus, seen in a more honest light, we need to understand that preference for negotiation over force is, in reality, a preference for capitulation and a policy of fear. Capitulation is then interpreted as being wise and detached, whereas it is actually a flight from reality and the unpleasant experiences that accompany any of life’s confrontations.

He also pretended to be detached in the Shiite-Sunni conflict. According to Obama, the two sides “need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood.”  Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal tags this remark as sounding more “like Mr. Rogers.” However, this writer finds it to be more duplicitous and sinister than Mr. Stephens thinks.   In reality Obama has taken the side of the Shiites and of the Muslim Brotherhood wing of the Sunnis.  He has decided to reject Sunni leadership that is not rooted in Muslim Brotherhood ideology — in Libya (overthrew Qaddafi), Egypt (overthrew Hosni Mubarak and is not working cooperatively with General Abdel el-Sisi, but did send F-16s to el-Sisi’s predecessor Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi), and Yemen (allowed a pro-Iranian Shiite faction to overthrow the pro-Saudi government).

Further, the U.S. has not lifted a finger to prevent Iranian-backed Hezbollah from taking over Lebanon.

Lastly, and most important from a Jewish perspective, he has justified U.S. funding of Hamas via their alliance with the PLO in 2014.   And we know that Hamas is a Shiite (Iranian-backed) organization with Muslim Brotherhood backing as well. Thus by saying to Goldberg that Shiites and Sunnis will just have to learn to get along, Obama was feigning a neutrality that in practice he totally rejects.  His remarks are pure political theater, totally divorced from the policies and practices of his administration.

Although Bret Stephens characterizes Obama’s thinking as shallow, it seems to this writer that Obama’s playacting is not rooted in shallowness, but simply in his being wrong. His underlying principles are ultimately harmful.  He is identified with left-wing pseudo pacifism (“pseudo” because violence is justified, but only for leftist ideals), a Marxist-derived anti-American bias that would portray the U.S. as an exploitative society, a bitter anti-Israel bias derived from his Muslim roots, and a false universalism (“false” because it is not God-centered).

His playacting is thus an attempt to distract from his deep ideological commitments. In Hamlet, the play was intended to reveal the hidden murderous action of the King of Denmark.  With the present U.S. executive branch, the intent of the playacting is to hide the murderous intent.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Obama and Iran, Obama and Islam, Obama and Israel, Obama and Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Russia, Obama's America, Shiite vs Sunni
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Off Topic | Cuban migrant crisis continues in Panama

March 19, 2016

Cuban migrant crisis continues in Panama, Newsroom Panama, March 18, 2016

(Why are these Latin American nations less welcoming to Cuban refugees than The United States? And, in view of Obama’s reset of relations with Cuba, why do so many Cubans want to leave Cuba? — DM)

uban-migrants-620x264The first air-lifted migrants disembark

ON The DAY that a Chiriqui resident fed up with accumulating  filth around his home,  was  videoed attacking a Cuban migrant with a machete and only days after Panama and Costa Rica declared that the airlift of thousands of stranded  Cuban migrants en route to the United States had been completed, another 1,000 Cuban migrants are on the Panama-Costa Rica border, according to an EFE news agency report.

“In Chiriqui, the  province that borders Costa Rica, there are about 1,000 Cubans,” waiting to continue their journey northward, said  Osiris Abrego, the program coordinator for Caritas International, a Catholic Church agency told EFE on Thursday March 17..

The Cuban migrant crisis exploded last Nov. 15 when Nicaragua, decided to close its border, claiming risks to its security and sovereignty, which caused almost 8,000 Cubans to accumulate in Costa Rica.

The Costa Rican government stopped issuing visas to the islanders in mid-December and said it was no longer able to admit any more people. As a result, some 1,000 Cubans were left stranded in Panama, forcing the Panamanian government to strike its own accord with Mexico to fly the migrants northward.

What at the time was believed to be the last of those Cubans – a group of 300 migrants – were flown from Panama to Mexico on a commercial flight on March 15  when Panama  declared the airlift operation, of nine flights over three weeks, to be completed.

Now, however, it seems that the flow of Cubans has not ended. Meanwhile, conditions for the latest group of 1,000 migrants on the Costa Rica border are worse than those faced by the Cubans who came before them, as the Panama  has ceased providing them with humanitarian aid, according to Caritas International.

The migrants also cannot be airlifted to Mexico, because the accord between Panama and Mexico applied only to the Cubans left stranded in Panama when Costa Rica stopped issuing them visas and does not apply to any new arrivals.

According to Caritas, not only is the Panamanian government not providing humanitarian aid, the government is attempting to dismantle their encampments.

T e director of Panama’s National Migration Service, Javier Carrillo, denied those claims and said that the migrants were being cared for.

“Of course we are helping them. Anyway, Costa Rica is causing the problem [by not issuing them visas], What can we do? We cannot force another country to receive foreigners,” Carrillo told EFE.

Cuban nationals receive preferential immigration status upon setting foot in the United States under the Cuban Adjustment Act, commonly known as the “wet foot, dry foot” policy.

But warming relations between the United States and Cuba have led to fears on the island that the policy may come to an end, sparking an unprecedented wave of Cuban migration that hasn’t been seen in decades.

Categories: Cuba, Immigration, Latin America, Obama's America
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Syrian Refugees a Threat to the West?

March 18, 2016

Syrian Refugees a Threat to the West? Religious Freedom Coalition, Editors, March 15, 2016

Syrian immigrants

“Europe is a basket case” and “it is going to get worse in 2016,” stated former House Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra at a February 29 Center for a Secure Free Society (CSFS) panel in Washington, DC, on Middle East refugees.  He and his fellow panelists gave critical analysis of various dangers faced by Western societies responding to the humanitarian crisis caused by sectarian violence in a disintegrating Iraq and Syria.

Center for a Secure Free Society Senior Fellow J.D. Gordon introduced the panel by noting that four million Syrians, about half the country’s population, have fled the country.  Such numbers placed in perspective the 10,000 Syrian refugees President Barack Obama’s administration intended to resettle in the United States, as mentioned in the event literature.  Center for a Secure Free Society International Fellow for Canada Candice Malcolmsimilarly noted that Canada had fulfilled the very day of the panel a campaign pledge by recently elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to accept 25,000 Syrian refugees.

Yet the panel focused on Europe, where an estimated 900,000 Syrian refugees had entered Germany alone, as noted by panel moderator and Daily Caller opinion editor Jordan Bloom.  American career diplomat Ambassador Alberto Fernandez described this human stream by which Europe voided its own entry rules as a “massive, unplanned exercise in virtue signaling by the European Union.”  Bloom worriedly noted the recent announcement by German authorities that they had lost track of 130,000 refugees.

“Germany is lying,” Hoekstra responded to Bloom amidst audience laughter, “there is no way that they are still tracking 770,000, that they have only lost 130,000.  They only know that they have lost 130,000.”  Hoekstra described television coverage during a recent Europe vacation of thousands of refugees in the Budapest train station where he and his wife had just transited.  He speculated that perhaps another 50-70,000 refugees had entered Germany without any official knowledge.

“If you don’t think that they are seeded with ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] people, you are crazy,” Hoekstra said of these refugees while predicting for Europe as well as Canada a “security nightmare.”  “We have no idea who these people are.  The Canadians have no idea who these people are,” he stated while suggesting that half the refugees entering Europe actually came from Afghanistan.  Fernandez discussed a Syrian friend living in Belgium who went to visit 90 supposed Syrian refugees in her community but only discovered five; the rest of the individuals hailed from various places like Afghanistan or Eritrea.

Malcolm cited worrying statistics such as those of a British polling firm that found 20 percent of Syrians in general and 13 percent of Syrian refugee camp residents in particular having a positive view of ISIS.  A Lebanese cabinet minister had estimated that two percent of Syrian refugees were ISIS sympathizers/members, approximating nonetheless 20,000 dangerous individuals among Lebanon’s 1.2 million Syrian refugees.  Yet for Syrian refugees “Europe has absolutely no selection criteria whatsoever.  It is a first come, first served free-for-all.”

Malcolm described strict Canadian security controls similar to America’s designed to screen such dangers among refugee resettlement applicants.  Canada only accepted Syrian families, no single men, from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) camps and applicants could not have infectious diseases or criminal records.  Any inconsistency in an applicant’s story immediately stops security checks involving an interview.

Nonetheless, Malcolm noted that ISIS had seized passport production facilities in Syria’s failed state, a factor among others like stolen identification that would stymie even Canada’s precautions.  Reliable Syrian officials for local background investigations no longer existed, she noted, while Hoekstra observed that “by definition, trying to get information from a failed state means you are going to get failed information.”  While Canadian intelligence has already identified Islamic terror cells in every major Canadian city, Malcolm stated, ‘it just takes one to get through to create a national security threat.”  This should also concern Canada’s American neighbor across a basically open border.

While Trudeau’s refugee pledge initially helped him on the campaign trail, Canadian public opinion has “totally flipped” on further refugee resettlement, Malcolm observed.  “After the [November 2015] Paris attacks, people in Canada started to realize that there was a threat” and overwhelmed Canadian refugee aid organizations want a pause in admitting refugees.  While Trudeau has called for resettling another 25,000 refugees, 70 percent of surveyed Canadians disagree with his policy and 43 percent want no more.

Fernandez noted that security concerns can extend beyond the first generation of resettled Muslim refugees.  “Second generation immigrants are an at risk population,” as unlike the parents who show gratitude towards asylum countries, the children “grow up confused, they grow up with identity issues.”  As an example he cited the 2013 Boston marathon bombers, the offspring of Chechen asylum seekers, while Malcolm mentioned Ottawa’s 2014 Parliament Hill shooter, a Canadian-born man whose father was involved with Libyan jihadists.

Himself a Cuban refugee, Fernandez worried about Muslim refugee assimilation in a Europe now having an “acute crisis of identity.”  He emphasized the necessity of a “confident, clear-minded culture, society, and state who understands who they are, what they are, what their values are, what they stand for, to be able to assimilate others.”  The demand to assimilate foreign-born individuals into a society begs the question “assimilate into what?”

Amidst all these concerns, Fernandez noted in Syria the “tremendous irony that the countries that are not responsible for this debacle are the ones being called upon to do much” to help.  Iran, Qatar, Russia, and Saudi Arabia had given the most aid to the Syrian conflict parties, yet the single largest humanitarian donor to Syrian refugees was the United States, a non-Muslim-majority country.  Malcolm meanwhile noted that 90 percent of Syrian refugees originally offered sanctuary in Canada refused, demonstrating how many refugees wanted to stay in the region.  Many things would be simpler for all concerned if only they could satisfactorily fulfill this wish.

Categories: Canada, Europe, Islam and Christianity, Islamic invasion, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Obama and Islam, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Satire | Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic!

March 18, 2016

Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic! Dan Miller’s Blog, March 18, 2016

(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

trump-assault

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. 

As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.

Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:

They’re patriots.

. . . .

With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:

A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.

Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.

Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!

Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!

668 (1)

Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.

 

 

Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.

Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning

came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!

Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.

PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.

“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”

Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.

“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was speaking just days before a campaign event in Phoenix.

Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump

The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.

Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.

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

Editor’s comments

 

 

 

As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.

It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.

 

 

Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.

 

 

For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?

crazed

 

Categories: Abbas, Democrats, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Freedom of speech, Hillary Clinton, History, Immigration, Iran scam, Islam and child brides, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Israel, Israeli nukes, Leftists, Obama, Obama's America, Palestinian terrorists, Palestinians and Jews, Racism, Republicans, Satire, Trump rallies
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism

March 16, 2016

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, March 16, 2016

trump

Donald Trump’s success in the primaries and his rhetoric have sparked troubled meditations about an awakening of fascist impulses among his supporters. Bret Stephens has drawn an analogy with the Thirties, “the last dark age of Western politics,” and compared Trump to Benito Mussolini. On the left, Dana Milbank, in a column titled “Trump Flirts with Fascism,” wrote about a campaign rally at which Trump was “leading supporters in what looked very much like a fascist salute,” a scene New York Times house-conservative David Brooks linked to the Nuremberg party rallies.

Much of the rhetoric that links Trump to fascism or Nazism is merely the stale ad Hitlerum fallacy used by progressives to demonize the candidate. They did the same thing when they called George W. Bush “Bushitler.” This slur reflects the hoary leftist dogma that conservatives at heart are repressed xenophobes and knuckle-dragging racists lusting for a messianic leader to restore their lost “white privilege” and punish their minority, immigrant, and feminist enemies. As such, the attack on Trump is nothing new or unexpected from a progressive ideology whose totalitarian inclinations have always had much more in common with fascism than conservatism does.

What Auden called the “low dishonest decade” of the Thirties, however, is indeed instructive for our predicament today, but not because of any danger of a fascist party taking root in modern America. Communism was (and in some ways still is) vastly more successful at infiltrating and shaping American political, cultural, and educational institutions than fascism ever was. But the same cultural pathologies that enabled both fascist and Nazi aggression still afflict us today. These pathologies and their malign effects are more important than the reasons for Trump’s popularity–– anger at elites, economic stagnation, and anti-immigrant passions–– that supposedly echo the “waves of fear and anger” of Auden’s Thirties.

The most important delusion of the Thirties still active today is the idealistic internationalism that had developed over the previous century. A world shrunk by new communication and transportation technologies and linked by global trade, internationalists argued, meant nations and peoples were becoming more alike. Thus they desired the same prosperity, political freedom, human rights, and peace that the West enjoyed. Interstate relations now should be based on this “harmony of interests,” and managed by non-lethal transnational organizations rather than by force. Covenants and treaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and institutions like the League of Nations and the International Court of Arbitration, could peacefully resolve conflicts among nations through diplomatic engagement, negotiation, and appeasement.

The Preamble to the First Hague Convention (1899) captures the idealism that would compromise foreign policy in the Thirties. The Convention’s aims were “the maintenance of the general peace” and “the friendly settlement of international disputes.” This goal was based on the “solidarity which unites the member of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” Two decades later, the monstrous death and destruction of World War I should have shattered the delusion of such “solidarity” existing even among the “civilized nations.” Despite that gruesome lesson, Europe doubled down and created the League of Nations, which failed to stop the serial aggression that culminated in World War II.

But the League wasn’t the only manifestation of naïve internationalism. The Locarno Treaty of 1925 welcomed Germany back into the community of nations with a seat on the League of Nations council. Nobel Peace prizes, and wish-fulfilling headlines like the New York Times’ “France and Germany Bar War Forever,” were all that resulted. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 “condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it as an instrument of national policy” in interstate relations. The signing powers asserted that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

All the future Axis Powers signed the treaty, and they all soon shredded these “parchment barriers.” In the next few years, Japan invaded Manchuria, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in gross violation of the Versailles Treaty, and Italy invaded Ethiopia. By the time Germany annexed Austria, and Neville Chamberlain’s faith in negotiation and appeasement handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, all these treaties and conventions and conferences were dead letters, and the League of Nations was exposed as a “cockpit in the tower of Babel,” as Churchill suggested after the First World War.

However, such graphic and costly evidence showing the folly of “covenants without the sword,” as Hobbes put it, did not discredit this dangerous idealism over the following decades. Indeed, it lies behind the disasters of Obama’s foreign policy. Just consider his “outreach” to our enemies, his acknowledgement of our own “imperfections,” his reliance on toothless U.N. Security Council Resolutions, his preference for non-lethal economic sanctions to pressure adversaries, and his belief that negotiated settlements and agreements can achieve peace and good relations even with our fiercest enemies. All reflect the same failure to recognize that our adversaries in fact do not sincerely want to reach an agreement, for the simple reason they are not in fact “just like us,” and so they do not want peace and prosperity and good relations with their neighbors and the “world community.”

The catalogue of Obama’s failures is long and depressing. The “reset” with Russia and promise of “flexibility,” the empty “red line” threats against Bashar al Assad, the arrogant dismissal of a metastasizing ISIS as a “jayvee” outfit, the alienation of allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the cultivation of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the ill-conceived overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi, and the rhetoric of guilt and self-abasement are just the most noteworthy failures. The nuclear deal with Iran, of course, is the premier monument to this folly. Yet despite the increasing evidence of its futility­­––Iran’s saber-rattling in the Gulf, capture of U.S. military personnel, genocidal rhetoric, and testing of missiles in blatant violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution–– Obama still clings to this internationalist delusion.

A recent article in The Atlantic on Obama’s foreign policy shows, despite his protestations of hardheaded “realism,” that he has not learned from his failures. Thus he still thinks that the vigorous use of force is usually an unnecessary and dangerous mistake, and that verbal persuasion and diplomatic engagement are more effective. He also still believes that “multilateralism regulates [U.S.] hubris” of the sort that George W. Bush showed when he recklessly invaded Iraq, and that American foreign policy has frequently displayed.

Obama’s delusional faith in rhetoric, especially his own, comes through in his rationale for the infamous 2009 Cairo speech: “I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.” The idea that Obama’s mere words could start a “discussion” that would transform 14-century-old religious doctrines fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, human rights, and all the other Western goods we live by, is a fantasy. Obama’s self-regard recalls Neville Chamberlain’s boast after his meeting with Hitler at Bad Godesberg that he “had established some degree of personal influence with Herr Hitler.”

Or consider Obama’s take on Vladimir Putin:

He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.

A “player,” in Obama’s foreign policy universe, is a leader who uses “smart power” like diplomacy and negotiated deals, and recognizes that the use of force will backfire and lead to costly “quagmires.” As Secretary of State John Kerry suggested, Putin is using outdated “19th century” instruments of foreign policy like military force in a world that presumably has evolved beyond it.

In contrast, a genuine “player,” as Obama fancies himself, attends summits and conferences, such as the useless climate change conference in Paris, and “sets the agenda.” And like his rationale for the Cairo speech, as the leader of the world’s greatest power, his rhetoric alone can be a force for change. Thus just saying that Syria’s “Assad must go,” while doing nothing to achieve that end, is still useful, and refusing to honestly identify the traditional Islamic foundations of modern jihadism will build good will among Muslims and turn them against the “extremists.”

Meanwhile, Putin and Iran fight and bomb and kill in Syria and Iraq, and now they are the big “players” in a region that the U.S. once dominated, but that now serves the interests of Russia and Iran. I’m reminded of Demosthenes’ scolding of the Athenians for refusing to confront Phillip II of Macedon: “Where either side devotes its time and energy, there it succeeds the better––Phillip in action, but you in argument.”

In other words, for Obama as for Chamberlain, appeasing words rather than forceful deeds are the key to foreign policy––precisely the belief that led England to disastrously underestimate Hitler until it was too late. And that same belief has turned the Middle East into a Darwinian jungle of clashing tribes, sects, and nations.

Obama wraps his foreign policy of retreat in claims to “realist” calculations of America’s security and genuine interests, and buttresses his claim by citing his strategically inconsequential drone killings. But such rhetoric hides an unwillingness to risk consequential action and pay its political costs. And it reflects a commitment to the internationalist idealism that gives diplomatic verbal processes an almost magical power to transform inveterate enemies into helpful partners. Europe tried that in the Thirties, and it led to disaster. That’s a much more important lesson from that sorry decade’s history than the lurid fantasies about fascism coming to America on the wings of Trump’s rhetoric.

Categories: Donald Trump, Europe, Fascism, Foreign policy, Germany, Human rights, Iran scam, Leftists, Middle East, Moral equivalence, national security, Nazis, Obama, Obama's America, Take America back, Western media
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »