We Americans used to believe that the states were the laboratories of democracy. A state could try out a policy to see whether it worked. If it did, other states could adopt it. Perhaps the federal government would follow suit.
Today, the laboratory for immigration policy is not the states, but Western Europe, especially Germany.
How’s that working out?
Not very well. Not very well at all.
By now the alarms are getting louder. Former Time Magazine person of the year, German Chancellor Merkel seems to be leading Germany and even the rest of Europe toward extinction. By opening her country’s doors wide to a marauding army of Muslim refugees she has destroyed peace and tranquility in her nation. Germans are currently too afraid to celebrate Oktoberfest. And Merkel continues to rationalize her policy and declare that Germans should embrace tolerance.
Serious German publications are blithely dismissing the rising threat by saying that Germans should occupy the moral high ground and must not allow the invading refugees to provoke them into abandoning their values of tolerance and inclusiveness. Germans are being told not to succumb to fear. And they should certainly not be angry at Mama Merkel for engineering this catastrophe.
Like it or not-- and many people will not-- but there are times when it is correct to feel afraid. If you are walking through a dark alley at night and feel afraid, you probably have good reason to do so.
And there are times when you should feel anger. When your country is being overrun by refugees who want to destroy your culture, and when civil and political authorities seem powerless to do anything about it, you have a right to feel anger.
To imagine that normal human emotions must be suppressed in the interest of liberal and leftist pieties is a grave error. That is, an error that will lead you to your grave.
Of course, Angela Merkel is merely a mini-Hillary Clinton. Or is it, vice versa.
The woman who seems most likely to be our next president wishes to adopt her own version of an open borders policy in America. In that she has been following in the footsteps of our current appeaser-in-chief, a man who is so weak and cowardly that, as the Wall Street Journal reported this morning, he sent hundreds of millions of dollars in hard currency to the terrorist regime in Iran… in exchange for a hostage release.
And then, of course, denied it.
Because he and his media flunkies believe that reality is what you say it is.
It would be good if the Republican Party had nominated someone who could lead the fight against immigration, but the Donald has been flailing more than he has been leading. In the recent dustup over Captain Khan he might have let his spokespeople carry the ball. Then again, when you employ people like Katrina Pearson, who declared yesterday that Obama was responsible for the death of Captain Khan, which happened during the Bush administration, you certainly have a problem.
The Donald might have buttressed his case against Muslim immigration by saying a few words about what happens when you welcome the Tsarnaev family, the San Bernardino and Orlando killers, and other Muslim terrorists. Instead he got into a shouting match with the parents of a Muslim war hero.
While Captain Khan was a war hero, his example should not blind us to the dangers. And yet, for lack of a skilled communicator, Democrats and Republicans are signing his praises, and before you know it, no one will be able to argue against increased Muslim immigration—a point on which Hillary is most vulnerable.
To keep the record clear, we turn to Michelle Malkin, who lists some of the Muslim Non-Khans in the American military.
She begins with:
Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan, the vengeful mass murderer who gunned down 13 service members — including a pregnant private first class who lost her life and her child — and wounded more than 30 others at Fort Hood in 2009.
in 2013, Muslim-American Navy veteran Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and an accomplice were convicted of plotting to kill officers and employees at a Seattle military recruiting center. The would-be killers wanted to retaliate against “the American military presence in the Middle East” and to prevent our troops “from going to Islamic lands and killing Muslims.” The co-conspirators cited Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood attack as inspiration.
Want some more?
Army soldier Ali Mohamed, who pleaded guilty to conspiring with Osama bin Laden to “attack any Western target in the Middle East” and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings.
Naval reservist Semi Osman, linked to a terrorist training camp in Oregon. Army reservist Jeffrey Leon Battle, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to levy war against the United States.
Navy sailor Hassan Abu-Jihaad, convicted on charges of espionage and material support for terrorism after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified information with al-Qaeda financiers, including U.S. ship movements prior to the USS Cole bombing in Yemen.
U.S. Army private first class Naser Jason Abdo, who plotted to kill his fellow soldiers to “get even” with the military and strike at kafirs (non-Muslims).
At some point a nation needs to balance the risk against the potential reward. For now, no one seems to be doing so.
The Donald got baited and fell for the bait. He has seized an issue that is vitally important to the nation and its future. But, he is an amateur who is now playing in the big leagues.
Obviously, the media knew that Trump was the Republican who would have run the weakest against Hillary Clinton. So, it gave him a pass during the primaries, awaiting the general election to unload on him. Clearly, the media is extremely and unashamedly biased. Just as clearly, Trump has lost traction and seems not to know how to respond.
So, we are more likely to see the immigration problem aggravated under a President Hillary.
In the meantime, how are things going in the laboratory of immigration policy, Europe? A former member of the Polish version of the CIA noted yesterday that Europe is on its deathbed, and that it has been killed by Merkel’s multiculturalism.
The Daily Mail has the story:
A former Central Investigation Bureau officer in Poland has claimed 'Western Europe is practically dead' and blamed Angela Merkel's migration policy for its demise.
Jacek Wrona slammed the German government's response to terror attacks while appearing on a Polish chat show alongside military historian Dr Rafal Brzeski, wPolityce reports.
Wrona compared the situation to the fall of the Roman Empire, saying: 'Europe is at the end of its existence. Western Europe is practically dead.
'These people live in a void, without ideas. And they come the young, who want to acquire wealth, as once did the barbarians. And they have the power.'
He said the EU is suffering because of political correctness.
This means that Europe no longer believes in Europe. It no longer believes in the value of Western civilization and thus sees no need to defend it. All of that indoctrination that students have been suffering has borne fruit. The proponents of political correctness have sapped the West’s will to defend itself and its will to fight.
Which, of course, was the whole idea to begin with.
These thinkers have taught a new set of values, coupled with a new series of narrative mythologies. In Europe, for now, these mythologies produce weakness by touting soft, feminine values.
Bret Stephens explained the new European values, the ones that have led to Europe’s pending destruction:
Among those mythologies: that the European Union is the result of a postwar moral commitment to peace; that Christianity is of merely historical importance to European identity; that there’s no such thing as a military solution; that one’s country isn’t worth fighting for; that honor is atavistic and tolerance is the supreme value. People who believe in nothing, including themselves, will ultimately submit to anything.
There you have it. Tolerance, occupying the moral high ground, being holier than thou, having the right feelings… these are the values that matter. America embraced these values values when it elected Barack Obama. True to his word, Obama has dismantled the American military, disengaged from conflicts around the world, paid off our enemies and will walk out of the White House touting his contribution to world peace.
Stephens offers an alternative set of values:
The alternative is a recognition that Europe’s long peace depended on the presence of American military power, and that the retreat of that power will require Europeans to defend themselves. Europe will also have to figure out how to apply power not symbolically, as it now does, but strategically, in pursuit of difficult objectives. That could start with the destruction of ISIS in Libya.
As it happens, we are now sending a few bombing missions into Libya. The reason seems clear enough: PR for Hillary. While he is pursuing a policy of appeasement, Obama has to make just enough noise to make it appear that he is tough. Similarly, Hillary led an assault on Libya in order to show how manly she was.
But, the terrorists understand what is going on. And they are happily exploiting Western weakness, transforming the everyday life of everyday Germans today, looking forward to doing the same in America tomorrow.
The storm of terror that is descending on Europe will not end in some new politics of inclusion, community outreach, more foreign aid or one of Mrs. Merkel’s diplomatic Rube Goldbergs.