Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Today Germany; Tomorrow America

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.

And also:

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.

Stephens explained:

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. 


Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

"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."

Yes. Let's translate the message they have to their own people: saying "Shut up and take it, you little bigot!" When values like tolerance and inclusiveness are being invoked to push forward a policy that creates chaos and division because the emigrants are ungrateful or unwilling to assimilate with their own tolerance and inclusiveness, it means tolerance and inclusiveness are values that are being used as weapons against the people who are supposed to just obey. For whose benefit?

On the other hand, how does one become German? It's cultural, not just political. You don't just sign a piece of paper and you're in. To fit in, you must sacrifice much of what you left behind in your home country. The Syrians are not willing to do that. Instead, they just bring their unadulterated culture with them, like luggage. That strikes people as signs of disinterest and ingratitude. That's without the gropings, molestations and rapes.

If we move to Nepal, we'd better be ready to live under Nepalese rules. It's the natural order of things. A society is not going to conform to an immigrant, and it ought not. That's why some invaders sometimes get absorbed into the culture of the invaded. Think of the Hessians of the American Revolutionary War, many of whom stayed to create lives in the New World, and learned to speak English and follow American laws and customs. They fought savagely (even inhumanely) against Americans and later became American citizens. But they had to defer, conform and sacrifice much of what they left behind in Hesse. Why today's Germans should expect less of their Muslim immigrants and Syrian guests is beyond me. No one is telling them to become Christian (indeed, much of Europe is now post-Christian), but they ought to demand they get with the program. Again, is the natural order of things when one emigrates.

The message ought to be "Fit in... or else." But in order to say that, the "or else" has to be a promise that you will defend what you value. This is not happening. Merkel feeds more platitudes.

Instead, we have multiculturalism, which is an ideological non-culture in its place. Multiculturalism demands relativism, because nothing can be superior, normative or subordinate. And because this kind of arrangement does not exist in nature, people will resist. That's why communication must be controlled. Indeed, it must be powerfully controlled, as culture is a decisive force that must be brought to heel if multiculturalism is to survive. That's why you get political correctness, and the scolding figures of Obama (who does not have an Anerican bearing at all) and Hillary, (who sees immigrants as a source of Demicrat votes). Meanwhile, our betters are surrounded by men with guns, while demanding citizens give up the means to defend themselves. Thusly, over the trajectory of time, multiculturalism = death. And you can say goodbye to your nation, because your nation is defined by territorial boundaries, laws and customs. That's culture. Give it up, or else. After all, tolerance demands it. This from Obama, the most ideological, intolerant and exclusive president we've had since Woodrow Wilson.

Tolerance is not a virtue. It's indifference. It makes you indifferent to your own country and culture. And then collapse. When you believe in nothing, you'll submit to anything. Islam demands submission. You're next.

Power is defined as "The ability to do or act; to accomplish something." On the geopolitical stage and in their home countries, Western Europe's power is waning, and lots of not-so-tolerant and less-than-inclusive actors are filling the void. It's predictable. Islamists are acting with impunity, and no one is stopping them. That's power.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

And in January, President Obama directed authorities to airlift $400 million in cash money, stacked on wooden pallets and delivered to a foreign capital on an unmarked cargo plane. The nation taking delivery continues to be our greatest enemy, and aids and abets terrorist organizations around the globe... now with untraceable cash. In return, we received 4 prisoners. We gave up 6 of their prisoners we held, and dropped extradition requests for 14 more.

That foreign nation is Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran. A militant, apocalyptic Shia Islamic theocracy... our sworn enemy for 37 years. Working toward nuclear weapons. Still daily chanting "Death to America," and threatening our closest regional ally with annihilation. For real. That country.

Good deal, huh? Until Iran took 3 more prisoner since, and no doubt wants more cash money on the next installment. That's Obama's diplomacy, and I'd like someone to tell me what it has to do with our national interest. Where's the grand plan? How does this fit? What is our national security doctrine today? BOHICA?

I am finding myself disgusted by what journalism has become. It's like "The Hunger Games." Obama can do whatever he wants. I cannot imagine any possible scenario that he would be held to task, threatened with impeachment, or even feel any heat whatsoever. He just stands up there and bloviates and scolds and believes whatever he wants to believe. Let's seriously consider what he could do if he wanted. He could run a CIA/NSA black operation to create massive voter fraud in the November election. He could sell military secrets to a foreign government. He could unilaterally give up our protection agreements with Taiwan to the Chinese. He could greenlight massive immigration in the next three months. He could pardon the Unabomber. He could do almost anything, and never be held accountable. At all. Hillary could come out and refuse to debate Trump, and Obama would back her up because he says Trump is "unfit to be president." As if Obama has ever been fit! Never mind, this narrative will play out so Hillary doesn't have to debate Trump... there's nothing but downside risk for her in debating him. And if Trump wins, imagine what the tension of the transition between November 9 and January 20. Imagine the tension. 73 days of national hell. I've always thought the whole "Obama third term" doomsday thing was part of the tinfoil hat crowd, but what's to stop Obama? The courts? Congress? The military? The press? No way. Obama can do whatever he wants. Anything. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried, and I cannot imagine a scenario where he would be held accountable.

No, the American media will say nothing critical of this secret Iran action, while Congress is cowed and the people shrug their shoulders. This is America today. All I have to say is that Trump had better get with the program and make something meaningful happen, or he will serve as a further symbol of all talk, no rock. Maybe the biggest.

It can happen here.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC: And in January, President Obama directed authorities to airlift $400 million in cash money...

I see that story is at the WSJ:
“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.”

Meanwhile, U.S. officials have said they were certain Washington was going to lose the arbitration in The Hague, where Iran was seeking more than $10 billion, and described the settlement as a bargain for taxpayers.

“Sometimes the Iranians want cash because it’s so hard for them to access things in the international financial system,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the January cash delivery. “They know it can take months just to figure out how to wire money from one place to another.”

Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Besides listening to the Iranian press, I see no reason to assume any relation between these two events, but if you like to play the outrage game, its the explanation that gives the most bang for the buck.

And yes, we know President Trump would never allow the U.S. to be accountable to rulings of foreign courts. So if you want the U.S. to be number one in international lawlessness, vote for Trump!

AesopFan said...

IAC, you sound like you need to see a good therapist.

Ares Olympus said...

To the immigration issue, it does seem like issues of sovereignty must rise in the coming years of mass immigration, and at the moment it is politically incorrect to do that, so Trump can represent that voice and see what happens.

And the 12+ million illegals already living here, from Mexico or south America, stand as a huge problem, not just because they take low wage jobs from poorer people, or because some may be rapists and criminals, but because people living below the law are easy victims to exploitation and criminals, since such people can not appeal to police when they are victimized.

So in this regards a war against illegal immigrants is similar to a war against drugs. Everyone knows drugs are destructive, but some people use them anyway. Everyone knows living somewhere illegally make you vulnerable, but they don't see any better choices. And like our multi-billion dollar failed war on drugs, Trump may start a new multi-billion dollar war against illegals living here, and the net effect of that war will be just to push illegals further into the shadows, and create new opportunities for criminals to make money off of desparate people willing to do anything to avoid detection.

So until we can face this predicament more intelligently, it looks to me like just another step towards a police state, something that libertarians and conservatives should fear.

It does seem like in the future the only logical step forward must be to create national identification cards, and databases that show the entire history of any individual back to their birth, remember Obama's forged birth certificate? And anyone without such documentation, whether they were born here or not will become a second class citizen, with no voting rights, and other limitations on their participation in our economy and government.

Well, I don't know how all that ends, but at least that'll keep the immigrants off the voter rolls for a generation long enough to keep a conservative supreme court to make sure undesireable people are kept in their place as the establishment sees fit.

Maybe we'll even go back to the days where only landowners can vote? And do you really own land if you have a 50 year mortgage? And mobile home parks are rented land, so they can't count.

I saw this speech linked recently. It's very interesting to try to see the long history of second class people, and interesting to consider that often people don't mind being looked down upon, as long as they have some else lower on the ladder to feel superior to. "White Trash: The 400-Year History of Class in America" Presented by Nancy Isenberg, Ph.D.

You have to think we're moving towards a country where the masses can not be trusted to vote the way the elites would like, and so anything that establishes rules for exclusion create a slippery slope to the next exclusion.

And unlike the GOP, Trump as a populist gains by widening the white voter base at least, people who normally don't bother voting, but Trump still benefits by excluding minority poor from voting and even if he loses on things like voter ID laws.

So if the GOP really wants Trump to win, they have to find ways to expand voting by poor white, while limiting it in other ethnic populations who right or wrongly see Trump as a scapegoating bigot.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @August 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM:

You'll believe anything.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @August 3, 2916 at 9:33 AM:

Once again, you'll believe anything.

Voter ID laws are to prevent voter fraud, and do not prevent people from voting. Get over your victim avenging and do some reading on these laws. They don't prevent or intimidate any minoritiea from voting. It's nonsense.

How much do the Democrats pay you to write these inane comments here?

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

AesopFan @August 3, 2016 at 9:32 AM:

Yeah, I get it. Thanks for the reflection.

I just don't have anymore room in my brain for the utter contempt I have for the journalism profession. They're the Democrat Party's PR arm. They don't do any work anymore, they just turn around and parrot whatever the Democrats tell them. Hillary says this Iran transaction that happened in January is "old news." And that's supposedly the end of the conversation about our dealings with IRAN, of all countries. Nothing to look at here. So the journalists just nod in agreement and are ready to move onto the next topic. Ho-hum.

They haven't a clue.

I'm just disgusted. I'm ready to shut it all off and not waste my time on news sites and blogs like this. I need to go earn more money so I can pay more taxes to give our government more play money. This is all a distraction without purpose or impact. I'm not saying this to whine or moan, I'm just looking at what else I could be doing that could otherwise make a difference.

I would love to see the media do its job by reporting facts and challenging politicians and public figures to be clear about what they are saying, and the likely consequences of their beliefs and choices. That would create a sane discourse, not this SportsCenter "news" nonsense we have everywhere.

And I would like for ONE intrepid journalist to ask the new Constitutional scholar and victimologist Khizr Khan just one question: "Mr. Khan, do you believe that Islamic Law is superior in temporal practice to U.S. constitutional and civil law?"

Just one journalist, just one question, and Khan's fantasy kingdom of righteous victimry and Constitutional lecturing will come crashing down. He places himself in the arena, so let's play a game: does Islamic law trump Western law, and our Constitution? It's a simple question, followed by in-depth examination of what shariah actually is. According to Khan's writings, the answer is yes... our constitution should be abrogated and placed under shariah. This is all out there. I found it 5 days ago doing a simple Google search. And now Khan has taken the website down for his law practice. Too many hits, eh?

Journalists are not doing their job. No therapy in the world is going to help me with that, so I might as well limit or eliminate my consumption of news, analysis and opinion. I'll focus on other things, and make things better in my own little corner of the world. I can do more good there. That's what I'm committed to...

fred-2 said...

"It would be good if the Republican Party had nominated someone who could lead the fight against immigration"

It did. Against the wishes of the Republican Party establishment, too.

"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."
You need to check your premises.

"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. Just as clearly, Trump has lost traction and seems not to know how to respond."

Again, you need to check your premises. This statement is what passes for great insight among people who are, to be polite, naive, weak, and wrong.

Trump is an unskilled amateur who get distracted like a kitten and a flashlight? This would be the same Trump who built a multi-billion dollar world-wide high-end real-state company? That unskilled, unfocussed Trump? The guy who beat out 16 professional politicians for the Republican nomination?

Dennis said...

Let me suggest that maybe Trump is not as distracted as one might think. Go back and read what Trump actually said. The words he use towards Ryan were the exact words Ryan used. The only difference was the media's response.
If one is a republican/Trump running for political office who is your biggest enemy. It is not your opponent. It is the "media." How does one defeat that enemy in a country that believes in free speech and press? One has to gradually take away the one thing the press needs to be effective. What would that be? Credibility.
Now of course I may be giving Trump more credit than is due because it is what I would do, but the words he has used, not the ones the media dissembled about, seemed to be used to elicit a media frenzy. An interesting aside here is the there is the history that actually happened and the history that gets written about. The same could be said about what was actually said as opposed to what the media intimated what was said and the context it was stated.
IAC brings out a very important point in asking about sharia, et al. Therein lies the question. In advantage lies the seeds of disadvantage. In disadvantage lies the seeds of advantage.
The media does not have Trump where they want him. Trump has the media where he wants them if he begins to make that pivot to concentrating his effort on Obama and Hillary and then allowing his surrogates to take the media to task he wins.
It is sad that it has come to the point in this country that the media is so biased that in order to win one needs to destroy the media first. It is not like they aren't doing a pretty good job all by themselves. "Journolist" which becomes "Cabalist." CABAL IST. One has to turn disadvantage into advantage.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

The most recent polls:

Dennis said...

To continue.

One would think that Trump's comments on Senator John McCain might hurt him. As someone who has voted for him before I might tend to think it would be so, but let us consider for a moment. I suspect that not too many of us who have served don't respect his service and the torture and incarceration in Viet Nam. We have reward him continually with our votes.
The question now is after a long extended period as Senator has the plight of veterans and the VA improved appreciably durning his tenure in the Senate? Are veterans still dying? I know when McCain ran for president there were a considerable number of veterans who would not vote for him. I did, but only because I disliked the other candidate.


And the polls were where last week. Not much has changed as Brexit indicates. I would suggest that there are a significant number of people, especially men, who are being less than candid.
This is early August and the polls are unreliable. I am not sure when we reached the point of allowing polls to govern our thinking.