Free Markets, Free People

Bruce McQuain

The West’s voluntary crisis

I’m more than a little bemused by the current self-inflicted problem Europe is experiencing and the US seems more the willing to allow to happen here, given that the current administration pretty much shares the ideals under which Europe is foundering.  I certainly understand the wish to aid people displaced by wars.  But since when did that mean committing to the mass immigration of a religious culture that has, demonstrably, refused to assimilate into the dominant culture of the countries into which they’re being imported (this isn’t a new phenomenon for Europe … it’s been going on for decades).  How does Europe, which has existent large populations of unassimilated migrants of the same religious culture assume this will somehow be different?

Of course, we’re talking about Islam.  Well, we’re talking about it.  As Andrew McCarthy points out, those in favor of welcoming this mass importation are talking about “fantasy Islam”.  This New Year’s Eve, reality slapped fantasy Islam and its adherents in the chops:

Nearly 200 women have filed criminal complaints in Cologne, the vast majority charging all manner of sexual assault. There have been few arrests, though, and nearly none involving sex crimes. The Muslim men used a tactic that has escaped the notice of fantasy Islam devotees but is well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.

But, but … that’s not supposed to happen. Not in fantasy Islam which is all about peace and coexistence.  In fact, those that believe that nonsense are all about naiveté and willful ignorance.  And there is a building backlash to this absurd policy:

A poll published by the Sunday edition of the influential tabloid Bild showed 49% of Germans feared a repeat of the Cologne events in their hometowns. Similar New Year’s Eve assaults were reported on a smaller scale in the cities of Hamburg and Stuttgart.

Authorities, who have described the violence in Cologne as unprecedented in the country, have also said that most potential suspects had applied for asylum in Germany or were in the country illegally. Cologne’s police chief was forced out Friday amid criticism over the police’s failure to prevent the attacks and its apparent hesitation to acknowledge that the attackers may have been asylum applicants. The police chief, Wolfgang Albers, denied trying to cover up the backgrounds of suspected attackers.

The attacks have also provoked an emotional debate in Germany on how to deal with sexual violence. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker drew heavy criticism after saying that women should keep an arm’s length distance from men in situations that could escalate. She later apologized, saying she didn’t mean to set a code of conduct for women and that the attackers were the ones responsible in cases of sexual violence.

Since the New Year’s eve attacks in numerous cities in Europe, the narrative that has been spun by the backers of this mass immigration has been reduced to tatters.  There’s even evidence other incidents have been essentially covered up.  In Sweden, for example, a major newspaper stands accused of no failing to report such problems, but essentially refusing to do so.

And the media in the US seems just as complicit in trying to deny what happened on NYE was anything to do with refugees or, by inference, Islam:

“It was not clear,” the New York Times opaquely explains, “that any of the men involved were among those who arrived in Germany over the past year from conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

While the NYT tacitly agrees that the incidents happened, in this land of #allwomenshouldbebelieved, it apparently has difficulty believing the descriptions of the men those 200 assaulted women identified because of what that would mean in terms of identifying their religion.  One thing that seems to be clear, however … it wasn’t a mob of German (or other) European males.

So the fellow travelers invested in fantasy Islam continue to refuse reality and are reduced to shouting “Islamaphobia” at anyone who disagrees.

The situation here isn’t much different.  I understand Obama will have a Syrian refugee sitting in the balcony for his (thankfully) last State of the Union speech.  It is obviously a symbolic presence meant to assure us that there’s nothing to fear by importing fighting age men from an Islamic country into this nation.  Because, you know, government is on the job and has this rigorous vetting process before any refugees are allowed in the country.  You have nothing to fear.

Oh, wait:

Two men born in Iraq who came to the U.S. as refugees had court dates in California and Texas Friday on terror-related charges, as investigators say one of the men wrote that he wanted to travel to Syria because he was “eager to see blood.”

How did that happen?  One assumes those two were also a product of that “rigorous vetting process”.  How many more like them are still at large?

As for those who might come here from Syria, guess who is handling their screening?

The recent terrorism-related arrests of two refugees from the Middle East again showed the national security risks associated with the present refugee screening process. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies analyzes this refugee resettlement screening process and the large role played by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the entity entrusted with the entire pre-screening process for Syrian refugees being considered for resettlement in the United States.

The UNHCR screens refugees and then presents the U.S. with potential resettlement cases; 22,427 Syrian refugee cases have been submitted. The selecting, pre-screening, and referring refugees for resettlement, as well as the humanitarian care of the well over four million Syrian refugees, has been accomplished with what amounts to one staff member for 2, 862 refugees. The selection process uses the following guidelines: “The mere absence of information, or one’s inability to find information that supports an applicant’s claim, should not in itself justify a negative eligibility decision.” The only requirement for applicants’ statements is that they “must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.”

Yes, friends, that same entity whose “peacekeeping” troops are so well known for rape.  I’m sure that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, no?

So why is it that Europe’s leadership and media continue to invest themselves in fantasy Islam?  Here’s one explanation.  Remember when the Catholic church’s sex scandal broke?  Remember how abysmally the church handled it?  Remember how badly it all went for the Church?

Instead like the church for political, economic or cultural reasons the countries of Europe hung back and the communities became isolated and unassimilated.  And when the cultural effect went beyond the results have been devastating, In Rotherham, in Birmingham, in Cologne, in Oslo in Paris and in literally thousands of other places the authorities have decided to go all in with a comfortable lie.  They have chosen to pretend that millions of unassimilated muslims in the west are not a problem, they have chosen to ignore the no go zones, the violence, the murder of their citizen and even the rape of their women and children for the sake of proclaiming that none of these things have anything to do with Islam, its practice or its culture.

Like the church scandal the driving force here is fear and a desire to put off a confrontation that this big lie is making more a more likely.  And like the church scandal the longer the west remains in denial the greater the cost of solving the problem

So again, the questions – reasonable questions – arise concerning these refugees.  Why must they come here (why can’t they be resettled in cultures in the area they come from which are compatible with theirs?)?  And if they come here, shouldn’t they assimilate instead of segregate and demand their own culture be both tolerated and implemented?  How does one implement cultural demands that require their own brand of law be superior to ours?  Or that women essentially be treated as chattel?  How many stonings, rapes, honor killings and acid attacks would we be willing to endure in the name of tolerance?

Victor Davis Hanson gives us 4 points necessary for successful immigration, the model for the past in the US.  They are a key to why, unlike Europe, America has been successful with its immigration over the centuries.  While the left scoffs at the idea of a “melting pot” and even warns that using the term is a “micro aggression”, Europe’s “salad bowl” proves their alternative to be … another fantasy.  Here’s Hanson:

“REFLECTIONS ON WISE AND SUICIDAL IMMIGRATION,”

One, immigrants came legally. Breaking the law was a lousy way to start American residency. How can an immigrant continue to respect and follow his adopted country’s legal system when his first act as an American resident is to mock federal law?

Two, immigration was blind and diverse. It did not favor one particular group over another. The more diverse the immigrant blocs, the less likely they were to form lasting separate communities. There were, of course, mass influxes of immigrants in the past, but they were quite diverse: gobs of Germans, hordes of Irish, masses of Italians and Sicilians, huge influxes of Poles and Jews, lots of Japanese and Chinese, large arrivals of Mexicans. But note how diverse and varied were the immigrants’ places of origin and how destined they were to bump into each other upon arrival. Each group was wary of the other trying to use immigration as a crass tool to boost their own political fortunes by bringing in more kin than their rivals.

Three, immigrants usually arrived in manageable numbers; mass arrivals were usually periodic and episodic, not continuous and institutionalized. Only that way could the melting pot absorb newcomers and avoid the tribalism and factionalism that had always plagued so many prior failed multi-ethnic national experiments abroad. To avoid the fate of Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia, immigrants—geographically, politically, culturally—by needs were soon intermixed and intermingled.

Four, both hosts and immigrants insisted on rapid Americanization. Immigrants learned English, followed all the laws of their host, and assumed America was good without having to be perfect. Otherwise they would have stayed home.

Fantasy, willful ignorance and an abject refusal to confront evil lead to the mess Europe now finds itself facing.  Reality, as usual, doesn’t deal nicely with those who refuse to recognize it.  The threat to our country comes from those who believe in a culture and religion that, as they would have it implemented, is incompatible with Western ideals.  They have no business here.

Hopefully we won’t duplicate the stupidity with which Europe has so naively committed itself.  There is nothing wrong with slowing things down and ensuring we aren’t allowing those who don’t want to or won’t assimilate into our country.  We don’t need or want those who are like the two just arrested in California and Texas.  And, if that is “Islamaphobia”, then so be it.  I’ll live with the tag.

~McQ

Stray Voltage

Another thing I decided during my holiday hiatus was to make “Stray Voltage” a regular Friday feature. Why? Well, it covers a number of subjects/issues and gives everybody a lot to talk about over the weekend.

Question: Why is it the SJWs insist there is a “rape culture” on campus, but are mostly silent about the real rape culture that is rearing its ugly head in Europe among Muslim “refugees”?

Mr. Obama at his recent townhall meeting:

Obama didn’t hold back when asked by CNN moderator Anderson Cooper about the notion that the federal government — and Obama in particular — wants to seize all firearms as a precursor to imposing martial law. He blamed that notion on the NRA and like-minded groups that convince its members that “somebody’s going to come grab your guns.”

I have only one thing to say to that Mr. Obama: “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.”

Well here’s a surprise.  Another late night release, and more evidence that Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted:

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton’s personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled “confidential”, the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as “secret.” The total number of classified emails found on Clinton’s personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled “secret.”

Does the name Petraeus mean anything to you?  And in comparison his security breaches were minor.  Which makes you wonder what it is going to take to finally see Clinton prosecuted.  I also wonder if the Obama administration may be interested in keeping his executive actions in place after he leaves … enough so they’re willing to make a deal with the Democratic front runner?  I’m sure everyone would be shocked, shocked I tell you, if that was the case.

And while the president is crying and wailing about you folks owning too many guns, the beat goes on:

Two Palestinian men who were born in Iraq and came to the United States as refugees have been arrested in connection with terrorism investigations, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

Imagine that.  Both men of fighting age, both refugees, both engaged in terroristic activities, but I’m the xenophobe (or racist or, well, pick your favorite pejorative)  if I say don’t import trouble in the form of refugee men from Islamic countries that support and foment terrorism?

Finally, Mr. Obama seems to think that if he repeats the same nonsense over and over again, it somehow becomes true.  To wit:

“But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.” –President Obama, announcing his new executive orders on guns, January 7, 2016

This claim is simply not true.

This claim is simply not true.  Between January 2009 and December 2015, there are 11 European countries with a higher frequency of these mass public shootings than the US, and 10 European countries with a higher rate of deaths from these attacks.

But hey, this is for the low information citizen who only reads headlines and listens to sound bites (read the whole thing).  What’s that old saying?  A lie can travel around the world before the truth gets its shoes on?  Something like that.  That is why propaganda is so powerful.  And this, my friends, is nothing but propaganda … dutifully retransmitted by an willfully incurious media.

Have a great weekend.

~McQ

The “Agenda” Media

What is that, you may ask?  Well, it’s the “new media” of sorts.  In the old days, reporters reported.  They came up through the ranks and they were fairly objective. They knew their territory and they knew their subject.  Yes, I know about “yellow dog” journalism.  But it wasn’t hidden then under the patina of “objectivity” we suffer through today.   Today’s journalists, for the most part, are agenda journalists.  They have an ideological agenda that has been introduced to them early and nurtured through years of schooling and grad school.

Given what we read and hear, most people would gather that the agenda they follow is that of the left.  Why?  Well, has anyone taken a good hard look at academia lately?  Or is asking that a micro-aggression?  Help, I need a safe space.

Here’s an example.  If you saw a headline that said “Poll: 70 percent believe in climate change“, what would you infer from that?  We all know that “climate change” is the left’s newest code phrase for man-made global warming.  They had “global warming” pretty much shoved down their throats by multitudes of questions they couldn’t answer and conditions that didn’t meet their claims.  So they decided on a squishy term: climate change.

Here’s the term in use:

“Americans know climate action is critical — they’re seeing its impacts with their own eyes. Climate change is a moral issue, a health issue, and a jobs issue — and that’s why the strong majority of Americans want the federal government to do something about it, and support the strong outcome in Paris.”

And naturally, the headline in question reinforces McCarthy’s claim.  “The strong majority of Americans” want the fed to do something about as well as supporting the outcome in Paris.  70% would sure seem like a “strong majority” would’t it?  And “The Hill” is on it, reinforcing the agenda the claim.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, the data again doesn’t support the claim.  The Hill has to admit:
But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
Oh, so wait, only 27% agree with the government and EPA?   So the headline could have been “27% agree that human activity is the main cause of climate change?”  Well, that’s certainly a different kettle of fish, isn’t it?  One could then assume that while the rest agree that the climate is likely changing and they may believe it has to do with the natural cycles of the earth.  But of course, that wouldn’t further the agenda, would it.   So a deceptive headline and the hope that the marginally informed won’t read any further has to be what The Hill is shooting for here.
Instead, The Hill decides it is the result of partisanship, not a lack of scientific proof:
“The data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,” Tony MacDonald, director of Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute, said in a statement accompanying the poll results.
Again, nonsense. No mention of the “scientific” problems with the alarmist “science”.  An 18 year hiatus from warming.  Fudged data.  Totally inaccurate models.  Predictions and claims that have shown themselves to be wildly false.  That’s not politics, that’s hype, based on pseudo-science, gone terribly wrong and the American people have recognized it for what it is.  But the claim of partisan politics helps the agenda, because it infers that the other side is simply too ignorant and partisan to see the forest for the trees.
As for what Americans “strongly believe”, the environment, or “climate change”, barely registers as shown here in a Gallup roundup of problems the citizens of this country are concerned with.  It comes in 16th on a list of 23.
gallupproblems2
Yes, that’s right, the environment/pollution weighs in just before “Guns/Gun control”.  Yet these two non-issues are being heavily pursued by those in charge of our agenda driven government with the aid of the media.  Will of the people?  Passe.  Used simply as rhetorical window dressing.  There is no desire to do the people’s will.  There is only a desire to fulfill the political and ideological agenda.   And that’s why the number one issue that concerns the most people is our “Government/Congress/Politicians”.  The facade of popularly sanctioned government is cracking noticeably finally and the intent is clear, even with the agenda media trying to clear the way and patch up the cracks.

It’s this unholy alliance that has helped apply and tighten the shackles that have crippled our abilities to properly exercise our freedoms.   You’d think real journalists would have a natural skepticism about anything government says, yet for the most part, they are the government’s publishing arm, putting out unchecked propaganda at every turn or, as above, twisting information in such a way as to favor the agenda talking points.

But only the agenda of the left.  They’re relentless in their “fact checking” if the agenda is challenged.
All one has to do is consider how the current president, who by any standard has been a total failure at foreign policy, has been left alone by the media where a president on the right would have been challenged at every failure and hounded for answers as to why he’s performing so miserably.

And yet, we see the media instead concentrating its efforts on numbers 16 and 17 on the above list.

Surprise!

~McQ

The political strategy of a crocodile tear

Mr. Obama shed a tear yesterday as he told us why he was going to bypass Congress and enact gun control (at least a small part of it) by executive order.  Speaking of “gun violence” instead of violence in general, he said:

“We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” Obama said.

That’s simply poppycock. We don’t have to like it but freedom, as has been said any thousands of times, is not free.  Nor is it pretty or neat.  Nor are there those who don’t suffer because of it. It always has a cost – a price. But the alternative, what most Democrats seem to want, is the state deciding everything you can or cannot do, everything you can or cannot own.  That alternative is unacceptable to those who value freedom and are willing to suffer the cost.

No one is in favor of “carnage”.  But it isn’t the guns which cause the violence, sir.  Figure it out please.  When you tell me that abortion instruments are what kill about a million unborn human beings in the US each year, perhaps I’ll at least consider your thinking to be somewhat consistent.  And of course, that means cars and pools and rope, well you name it, also need to be controlled even more because the “carnage” they cause rivals anything to do with that involving guns.

Gee, given the numbers, perhaps he ought to be going after Planned Parenthood instead of demonizing the NRA.

Oh, and this was rich:

“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it,” he said. “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Apparently he thinks he knows the Constitution, but if true, he’d know it doesn’t allow aristocracy, and certainly it doesn’t allow kings.  Laws are passed through Congress and if the President doesn’t have the heft or gravitas or whatever he needs to see it done, then it doesn’t get done. Obama doesn’t have any of that. And the people have been quite clear that they don’t consider guns or gun control to be much of an issue.  In fact, it barely registers, no pun intended. So instead he  does “work arounds” with executive orders.  Tell us again about how you know the Constitution, please?

But let’s get to the nuts and bolts of what went on yesterday, shall we?  It is about, get ready for it, ideology:

Despite professing an unflinching commitment to curbing gun violence, Obama and Biden have been thwarted by Congress and what Obama calls a lack of national will to change the way Americans think about guns.

Got it.  It’s about changing the way you think about guns.  Its about making them the equivalent of a cigarette.  You remember when cigarettes were popular?   And what happened?  Well, think about it.  It wasn’t about people making poor choices and suffering for them that was the “cause” of their diseases. It wasn’t about their refusal to heed the strident warnings about smoking.  It became “the cigarette”.  That was the “cause”. And it was the cigarette that was killing people, not the people’s choices.  The object became the problem.  People were excused for making poor decisions even though the information that cigarettes caused horrific health problems had been out for years … decades.

The same sort of argument is being made about guns and “the strategy of a tear” was just the latest emotional appeal to a people who’ve been pretty darn logical about guns so far and aren’t buying into the argument as readily as they did with cigarettes.  In fact, they’re not buying into it at all and are, instead, buying more and more guns.  If you can’t get them to swing your way, cry on national TV.  That’ll show ’em how sincere you are.   And, of course, it seems to have fooled a good number of people out there already.

But to the point – this is frustration for Obama because you and most Americans won’t think the way he wants you to.  So?  So screw you, he’ll stamp his feet, hold his breath and make you do it by taking unilateral action.  But he knows the Constitution, by George.

This is just another in a long line of tantrums by this man.  When he can’t get his way, he simply looks for a means to impose his will.  He has no concept of what a President is or what one is supposed to do and he’s certainly no Constitutional scholar.  This is just the latest example.

So why is the cigarette model not working for the left?  For the most part it is because there really is no redeeming value to a cigarette.  But there is tremendous positive value to a gun.  You can’t defend yourself or your family with a cigarette.  You can’t feel more secure in your person with a cigarette.  You can’t protect your life or your property with a cigarette.  So despite the demonization of the object the left has committed itself too, the positive aspects of gun ownership simply won’t be buried, even with a tear.

The bottom line however should be clear – the left will do whatever it thinks necessary to strip Americans of their right to own firearms.  You will see every sort of argument tendered and numbers that, without context, seem horrific.  Such as “30,000” gun deaths – 62% of which are suicides.  Anyone who believes removing guns will prevent suicide just isn’t very serious about discussing suicide.  Japan, which has strict gun control laws, has more suicides than the US.  The problem isn’t the means.  It is the mental state of the person.  35% are homicides, most gang related.  No matter the laws passed, criminals are not going to obey them.  This seems to be a point the left can’t comprehend.  And finally accidents claim most of the remainder (about 606 in 2010).  “Mass shootings”?  A small minority of the final total.  And, in fact, gun violence and gun homicides are and have been trending down for quite some time.

However, like “climate change”, the alarmist hysteria continues despite the fact that the data doesn’t support it.

So now, it is all about an emotion.  A tear.

My freedom isn’t for sale for a tear, crocodile or otherwise, Mr. Obama.

~McQ

 

Welcome to 2016

You know, I got to thinking about it over the holidays.  I needed a break.  I feel somewhat refreshed and ready to face a brand new shiny year that will, unfortunately, contain the same old political dreck … times 10, since it is a presidential election year.  As has been pointed out here, many times, we are woefully served by our political class.  And, frankly, that’s our fault.  Complain all you want about government and politicians, but the bottom line is, the incumbents continue to be reelected  and give away the farm and the bureaucrats continue to siphon off our freedoms through unaccountable fiefdoms imposing freedom killing regulations.

The one good thing this year brings is seeing the Obamas ushered out of the White House.  The two bad things are the front runners for president in each major party.  I’m sorry, I see no intrinsic leadership value in either of them.  One is a blowhard opportunist with no concept of how to do what he claims he can get done and the other is, plain and simple, a crook and a liar.  This is what present day presidential politics has come down to.  What a non-choice.

Well, that’s not true.  We always have a choice, don’t we?  Even if it is to do nothing.  And if those are the two running in November, that will be my choice.  But, as with just about everything to do with today’s political and the class of politicians we suffer, this is an old complaint and frankly, I see nothing on the horizon to change that.  The polity is who makes these decisions, and it appears, for the most part, they believe that the government has money and can give them “free” things.  The depth of ignorance, especially about basic economic principles and how government functions is appalling, but that’s with what we continue to deal.

I’ve decided I need to take a little more time with my posts than with last year.  So I’m going to attempt to rearrange my schedule to where I have more time to devote to them.  That may mean posting in the evening when the work day is done.  Or not … depends.  But what doesn’t “depend” is the desire to be less reactive, less prosaic and more thoughtful.  Anyone can be outraged (and I will be) and upset, but it’s time to do more than state that.  It’s time to talk about the whys and wherefores.  It’s time to talk about alternatives.  It is time to take a good look at this grand experiment and dissect it to find out where the pathogen introduced itself and began to corrupt the system.  My guess is it will mostly boil down to human nature, opportunity and the quest for power.

Anyway, that’s my desire for this year.  Hopefully, I’ll keep this in mind and not let myself wander into the rut I found myself in last year.

Welcome to 2016.  Let’s see how it goes.

~McQ

 

An interesting thought experiment

Brought to you by Victor Davis Hanson.  I’m sure you can recognize the intent as well as the real subject:

Would Donald Trump cross the racial line to weigh in on a current high-profile criminal case, and suggest that had he another daughter she would have looked just like the deceased? Would he dare go to the UN Assembly to deplore an average bloody and lawless weekend in Chicago, reminding the world that a tribal U.S. has a long way to go? Or at an Islamic prayer breakfast, would Trump remind Muslims not to get on their religious high horses given the outrages of the Caliphate? Perhaps if Guantanamo is closed by executive order, Trump would reopen it by one too?

Would Trump dare use his sloppy epithets in reference to foreign leaders? Would he dismiss Putin as a back of the class cutup or obsessed with “macho shtick?” Would his aides with impunity tell reporters that the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was a “chicken sh*t?” Would he lecture us that America was as exceptional as Greece or Britain? Maybe he would visit the Middle East and Turkey and remind the world from foreign shores that the U.S. had a lot to own up to?

If Trump were to take selfies, claims he was usually the most interesting guy in the room, set a new presidential record for golf outings, pick the Final Four on live TV, would we still dub him narcissistic, distracted, and buffoonish?

And the biased institution in this bit?

Yup, that’s right, the so-called “unbiased media” which is about as unbiased and a Grand Dragon at a KKK rally (and no, in case you’re wondering, it doesn’t mean I’m for Donald Trump … just to clear the air).  Just remember, in the years since GW Bush left office, not once have we seen a report on anti-war protests, even though Afghanistan still continues, Iraq smolders and we toppled Libya.

~McQ

Stray Voltage

There’s a reason the GOP has become known as the “stupid party”. There’s a reason voters seem to be in open rebellion against establishment Republicans. If you are in the dark for reasons there are many, but if you need a couple recent ones, this 1.1 trillion budget deal that raises the deficit by billions of dollars, throws a lifeline to Obamacare, and apparently funds the climate deal might give you a clue.

What in the world does a majority in both houses of Congress do for the GOP if they’re simply going to capitulate to the Democrats and give them everything they want and the Republicans claimed they were against (and if you gave them the chance they’d show you … not). Is it any wonder that there’s a rebellion in the ranks? Keep it up GOP, and you’ll go the way of the Whigs.

And, in case you were wondering if what I said above is true, try this:

Hours after the mammoth spending bill dropped, Democrats are counting their triumphs, outlining conservative policy riders and priorities that were not included in the final spending bill.

A top Democratic Senate aide summed it up in a single tweet. Adam Jentleson, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff, wrote:

 

screenshot7

Say, wasn’t that Paul Ryan guy supposed to be the bee’s knees when it came to budget stuff?  Pro Tip: When Harry Reid is celebrating, you did it wrong!

And then there is the Idiot-in-Chief, someone you can always turn too reliably to observe what being totally out of the loop looks like:

Flanked by his national security team, President Obama reassured Americans that there was “no specific, credible threat” against the country ahead of the holidays.

“We do not have any specific and credible information about an attack on the homeland,” Obama said today at the National Counterterrorism Center. “That said, we have to be vigilant.”

That’s always true when you don’t read or attend your own intel briefings.

And on the Social Justice Warrior front, WalMart doubles down on stupid while Martin Luther King rolls over in his grave:

Backlash is growing for the CEO of Sam’s Club after she discussed her dislike for dealing with white men on CNN.

BPR reported Sunday that the company’s black, female CEO Rosalind Brewer planned to call a supplier she met with because she was disgusted that his management staff was filled with all white males.

It was more important to Ms. Brewer that a staff be racially and gender diverse rather than the best people be picked for their jobs. A practice she admitted to CNN’s Poppy Harlow she practices herself.

The president and CEO of WalMart Stores Inc., who owns Sam’s Club, Doug McMillon said the company supports Ms. Brewer and added that they ask their suppliers “to prioritize the talent and diversity of their sales teams.”

“Roz [Brewer] was simply trying to reiterate that we believe diverse and inclusive teams make for a stronger business. That’s all there is to it and I support that important ideal,” he added in the statement.

Yup, it’s not about the content of one’s character or who might be the best person for the job, but instead the color or one’s skin or their sex.  Back to the 40’s WalMart, next you’ll be putting in “separate but equal” water fountains.

~McQ

Finally recognizing a “sham”

No, I’m not talking about climate change this time. In fact, it has to do with a “sham” of the same sort of proportion. And, surprisingly, TIME’s person of the year said it:

The speech that followed, however, may have surprised supporters of her policies: “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees. “The challenge is immense,” she said. “We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.”

Although those remarks may seem uncharacteristic of Merkel, she probably would insist that she was not contradicting herself. In fact, she was only repeating a sentiment she first voiced several years ago when she said multiculturalism in Germany had “utterly failed.”

Well, Germany isn’t the only place where multiculturalism has failed. In fact, I’d love to see someone point to a success. When, as she notes, the “ism” sets up parallel societies, it is bound to fail. A “foreign” or non-native culture that is allowed to coexist with the native culture has little reason or impetus to become a part of the society the native culture has created. Or, as we’ve talked about, “assimilate”. Instead the foreign is allowed to establish itself and its cultural principles in that parallel society. If allowed, it could obviously, at some point, supplant the native culture, especially if the native culture is shamed into being “tolerant” and allowing such a culture a foothold – especially if that culture is diametrically opposed to the native culture.

France and Germany have allowed that condition to develop and exist for years. And, as Ms. Merkel points out, it’s been an utter failure.

The US, on the other hand, hasn’t. It has always considered itself a “melting pot”, not a “salad bowl”. In one the ingredients melt and all become one. In the other, the ingredients all stay separate but “combine” to create a pleasing dish. Unfortunately, the “salad bowls” of France and Germany have instead created a balkanized state with a parasitic culture that has not only not assimilated, but refuses to assimilate. The results have been the parallel societies, each with different beliefs (of which only one shares the beliefs and principles of the native country) which are at violent odds with each other.

Or said another way, the results are not at all the result the “multiculturalists” claimed they would be.

But then what’s new?

In the meantime, after “utterly failing” in Europe (which now reaps the consequences of multiculturalism) with the “life lie”, they’re busy here trying to shame Americans into believing that such balkanization as that which is failed in German and France is, in fact, a good thing and that “coexistence” with separate, non-assimilated cultures, some of which are obviously more violent and reject our cultural principles, is a “good thing.”

And the ideological wars continue. In fact, did you know that using the term “melting pot” as I’ve done above is considered to be a “racial microaggression” now?

More of the word salad the left enjoys using to obfuscate the truth. The truth is that some cultures are inferior to others and citizens of nations have every right to expect those who wish to call their country home also embraces the native culture that has made the nation and people what they are today.

It’s not really that much to expect, is it? Especially when the alternative is a “sham”.

~McQ

Would you invited a known killer who hated you into your house?

Yeah, me neither.  Yet, we have a group of people out there who are more than willing to take the chance of “inviting” known killers who hate us into the country.

As usual, the media and some pundits have turned a very gray area into stark black and white arguments.  You’re apparently for allowing open immigration to anyone or you’re a racist and a bigot if you opt to be selective.

What I’m talking about is the majority of the nation which is reasonably concerned that those who would kill us are seeking entry into the country without being screened and, if necessary, rejected.  This is characterized as “unAmerican”.  So, then, was Ellis Island where we rejected would be immigrants if they were sick or had criminal backgrounds, etc.

Andy McCarthy had this to say:

Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical. . . .

All important points, but the final point is most likely the most important.  McCarthy again:

Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. . . .

The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.

And that’s where we must draw the line.  If an immigrant wants to become an American, recognize the separation of church and state and embrace the constitutional principles which govern this country, I say “welcome”.  If not, I say, “don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass as you leave”.

Of course, the left’s legacy of “multiculturalism” says we must respect different cultures and learn to live with them.  I say, no we don’t.  Why?  Because some cultures are destructive and some cultures are inferiors.  I know, not politically correct, but certainly reality based (something the left once tried to convince us was a description of their ideological grounding).

You would no more invite a killer that hated you and wanted to take over your house into your home than any other sane person.  There’s no reason why we shouldn’t apply the same principle to this country (and for those of you who don’t read carefully, that means we don’t keep out all Muslims, only those (of any religion or ethnic group) who refuse to recognize our Constitutional principles and won’t assimilate).

We don’t “owe” them anything.

~McQ