Category Archives: Muslims

Immigration, character, welfare, and economic destiny

America’s economic growth will benefit from an immigration policy that sees people with skills come to work, not to latch onto America’s welfare benefits.

A few decades ago, when I was getting my history major at Cal, something very rare and special happened: I had a brilliant professor. Every lecture he gave was fascinating, so much so that, while I’ve forgotten most of what my other teachers told me and that I memorized for just long enough to pass the exams, I remember an amazing amount of what Professor Rothblatt had to say.

One of the things that especially stuck in my mind over the years was how he explained the fact that the British industrial revolution petered out (even before WWI and the Great Depression sank their talons into Britain), while the American industrial revolution kept going and going and going, rather like the Energizer Bunny.* According to Professor Rothblatt, the problem was the English class system. It wasn’t that the government used the class system to limit people’s economic opportunities. It was that the workers themselves felt constrained by the class system. It wasn’t a glass ceiling for them; it was a cast iron ceiling.

In many industries, once the abuses and upheavals of the first half of the 19th century wound down, especially in the late Victorian era when classic liberals in government started instituting some basic workplace protections, working people were able to make a decent enough life for themselves. Their definition of a “decent life,” though, was limited by class mobility. Within the confines of their working class neighborhood, their decent life meant that they could have enough food on the table, money for Sunday clothes in addition to work clothes, a snug home, etc.

What they could not do with earning and saving money, or with innovating and creating new ways of doing old work or creating new products altogether, was move into the next class. They could not move to better communities or get into better schools. There were, of course, exceptions as there are to every rule, but for the vast mass of working class Brits, Henry Higgins, channeling Alan J. Lerner, summed it up: “An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him.” Thus, there was no benefit to be had from working longer, harder, or more creatively. In real estate terms, the working class person who made this extra effort would be in the unenviable position of having the fanciest house in the neighborhood — he could never get a return on his investment.

In America, at least before the modern era of college-/university-educated elitists dawned, there was a tremendous amount of social mobility. People were applauded for leaving their class of origin, not denigrated for doing so. With Americans, whether native-born or immigrant, always believing that there was room at the top, they were willing to spend the time and energy to work harder and to innovate. This is why in America, once the brutalities of the early industrial revolution were tamed, that same revolution, rather than reaching a stopping point, was an endless springboard for rising classes of workers, allowing the disciplined, the diligent, and the creative to move up the economic scale.

Put simply, British culture contributed significantly to its industrial slowdown.

Culture can matter economically in America too. As I alluded to a few paragraphs ago, and as Kurt Schlichter develops at some length in his marvelous Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy, America is developing a very strong class system at the upper end thanks to our university caste. These are people who believe that their Womyns, Queer, and Race Study degrees entitle them to impose Marxism, both cultural and economic, across America. These grads are the virus that infect America’s business sector with the “wokeness” that took over America’s college campuses as they take over management positions. Once embedded in corporate America (or, even worse, in government bureaucracies), these “woke” grads secrete their ideological toxins into the workplace. They depress economic growth because their big government ideology is antithetical to a dynamic marketplace.

We see too that culture matters in the African-American community. When I see charts showing that African-Americans consistently score lower on SAT tests, I do not think, “Oh, black people aren’t as smart as others are.” Instead, I think, “Darn it! I wish they could get their cultural ducks in a row.” I wish that they would work hard in school, get a job, get married, and have children — in that order — and that they would then encourage their children to work hard in school. These values are how generations of Jews and Asians arrived in this country dirt poor and not even speaking the language, only to see their children move up and up the economic ladder, leaving the ghettos for the suburbs. The problem isn’t race; it’s culture.

We have other downscale culture problems in America. As I blogged about at length in the context of the Obamacare debate, there’s also a culture of poor people who have no desire whatsoever for economic mobility. I have a friend who is part of this culture, so I’ve seen this play out first hand.

When Obamacare came along, while my friend did take advantage of it because she has middle class values about preventive medicine and was indeed very grateful for low-cost, subsidized insurance, many of her friends were deeply offended that they would be forced to buy insurance. This was not because they were libertarians who objected to the government forcing them to make a purchase in the marketplace. It was because, no matter how heavily subsidized their Obamacare, they would still have to pay something every month. They preferred their existing system, which had no preventive care, but had them going to the ER for everything from colds to broken bones to appendicitis. That treatment was subsidized 100%, which was a better deal to them than paying $50 a month for insurance.

I wrote then that the Obamacare architects were operating on the assumption that everyone in America wants a middle class lifestyle, with a nice home, a new car every six years, college for the children, and insurance that covers not just emergencies but childhood vaccinations, colds, migraines, arthritis treatments, etc. In my friend’s circle, though, people had different goals: welfare checks, food stamps, free care at the ER, access to their recreational drugs of choice (and beer), and to be left alone. There was no part in their ethos that included working for any of the benefits they received courtesy of taxpayers. These people are the takers and they feel very, very entitled — especially because they are willing to have a very low standard of living in exchange for those benefits.

And then there are the immigrants. As Ben Shapiro said on his Friday podcast, he supports Trump’s plan to move immigration to a standard that looks at what the immigrant can do for America, rather than what America can do for the immigrant. The reason he does is because we live in a welfare state. Before the welfare state, Shapiro noted, people who came to America were (at least in theory) committed to working their way up the economic ladder. They were strivers, innovators, and risk-takers. Now, though, with the welfare state, people come here expecting to get better welfare than in their home countries.

Take Muslims, for example. In 2015, Jeff Sessions’ office prepared a chart showing how dependent “Middle Eastern” (i.e., Muslim) refugees are on welfare in America:

Muslim Refugees Welfare

That’s not just the case in America. Muslims take disproportionate advantage of welfare in whatever First World country they land.  Not all are like that, of course. I wrote last year about the absolutely delightful Afghani couple I met. When they finally immigrated (legally) to Canada, Canada extended them one year of benefits, plus loans. They learned the language, got skills, worked like crazy, paid back the loans, and now they and their children are thriving. However, this same couple looks at the latest batch of Syrian Muslim immigrants to Canada and is disgusted: the newbies are takers and very aggressive takers at that.

Overall, in a 2015 study, 51% of immigrant households got some welfare, compared to 30% of American households. (I suggest following the link I just provided; the data are fascinating.)

I’m not saying that legal immigrants to America shouldn’t receive some assistance, at least while they are adjusting to living in a new country.  That Afghani couple was a good example of people being given a hand up and then rocketing off on their own.

Nevertheless, it’s worth pointing out that immigrants of late come here expecting social services. Muslim immigrants especially come from a mindset that says that they are entitled to jizya — a subsidy from non-believers. In other words, too many modern immigrants come to America to take, not to work and create.

All of which is to wrap around to my original point, which is that, when it comes to whether our country’s economic does well, the debate shouldn’t just be about free market versus managed economies. Instead, culture matters too.

In England, it mattered that people knew that they could never rise above their class.

In America, it matters that too many African-Americans organize their lives in ways that are antithetical to economic success. It matters that native-born Americans on welfare are completely happy to live at the very bottom echelons of society, contributing nothing, provided that they don’t have to work. And it matters very much in immigration, when we open our doors to people, both legal (chain migration and lotteries) and illegal, who come here determined to take advantage of America’s generous welfare programs without feeling any corollary obligation to contribute their energy and innovation to the American economy.

______________________________________
* Obviously, any mistakes I make here are mine alone, whether because I misunderstood the good professor or because the passage of time has warped my memory about what he said.

Image credit: A Fool and His Money, by David Goehring. Creative Commons; some rights reserved.

The post Immigration, character, welfare, and economic destiny appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

The “no news is good news” open thread

Thanks to President Trump, it’s mostly good news out there, which is great for America (yay!), but limiting for a blogger. What do you think?

Scott Adams made an excellent point the other day, which is that, now that the media can no longer waffle on about Russian collusion (at least those in the media who retain some vestiges of sanity), there isn’t much news going on. After all, news tends to follow the “if it bleeds it leads” principle or, alternatively, “if it creates panic it leads” principle.

Thanks to Trump, Adams notes, all the panic points within America are gone. Trump is building the wall and threatening to give sanctuary cities what they asked for; North Korea seems to be pacified; the Mullahs are feeling pressure from reinstated sanctions; the economy is roaring, people haven’t died in droves since the Trump administration and the courts clipped Obamacare’s wings; Israel has a real ally in the White House; ISIS is militarily gone; Saudi Arabia is moderating, etc.

Moreover, Adams believes that even anthropogenic climate change (whether one believes in it or not) is going to become a non-issue, not because of Occasional-Cortex’s Green Nude Eel, but because of something called Generation Four Nuclear Fusion. If you haven’t heard about Generation Four Nuclear Fusion, Adams touts it as a system that’s not only safe, but that also burns up all that dangerous used nuclear material from old-style reactors.

All I know about Generation Four Nuclear is what I hear from Scott Adams, so I can’t tell you any more about it. Perhaps you can tell me more. Adams claims, though, that it will cleanly and safely produce electricity all over the world, rendering climate change hysteria moot.

Of course there’s still stuff in the news. The fire at Notre Dame was a true headline maker. The post-fire stories are interesting too. As best as I can tell, because Notre Dame belongs to the state, not the church, all the usual suspects on the Left are pleading for it to be re-built in modern ecumenical fashion, without all that nasty religious messaging that hangs about the old church. Imagine a multi-cultural Notre Dame, complete with a Muslim prayer complex, a Wiccan room, an LGBTQ workshop, and all the other accouterments of modern faith movements.

What surprised me most was the speed with which the government pronounced that the fire was just a workplace accident. Considering that a 900 year old church went up in flames, you’d think they’d want a little longer to investigate before coming up with a conclusion.

Meanwhile, Pamela Geller offers some different information from those familiar with the restoration work going on at Notre Dame, namely that:

  • The restoration work hadn’t yet gotten to the roof.
  • The experienced team working at Notre Dame was being excessively cautious about the fire risk.
  • The fire started fifty minutes after all workers had clocked out.
  • No employees from the scaffolding company setting things up were on site.
  • There were no electrical sources in the area in which the fire started.

There’s more at Geller’s site if you’re interested.

The conservative groups I follow are unanimous in believing that, even if Islamists started the fire, the French government cannot and will not implicate Muslims because it’s too politically dangerous for Europe’s ruling Leftists to do so.

However, others point out, quite accurately, that the usual Islamist suspects haven’t claimed responsibility, so it may really have been a pure accident. After all, those working on the church have a vested interest in proclaiming their innocence and pointing the finger elsewhere. But again, we cannot expect an honest appraisal from the government because politics will invariably beat out truth. This means that, even if the government telling the truth that it was a workplace accident, at least 50% of the West’s population will think that the French government is lying.

So yes, Notre Dame is newsworthy.

And of course, what’s endlessly newsworthy is the ways, both big and little, in which the Left continuously presses at America’s culture and at reality itself. Borders, transgenderism, feminism, #MeToo, climate, clown car Democrat presidential candidates . . . it’s all there. But blogging about it sometimes gets a little redundant, because I’ve blogged about it all before.

To be honest, I can hold forth forever on these familiar topics, because they always act as a burr under my saddle. But who among you wants to read iterations of the same post over and over? President Trump is just too good at what he does.

Tomorrow, though, I think I’ll blog about Pete Buttegieg. I find him quite threatening, because he’s the gay version of Obama, with the added twist of a military background. Take away the politically correct status and the Ivy League polish, though, and he’s Obama all over: Bland platitudes covering the hard Left politics of a red diaper baby who is, to date, a stunningly unsuccessful politician.

Let’s hope that the American people, having allowed the media to sell them a bill of goods with Obama (“Hey, you too can be part of history by voting for the first black president”), will have wised up and not fall for the same old shtick (“Hey, you too can be part of history by voting for the first openly gay president” — “openly gay” because Buchanan may well have been the first actually gay president).

Anyway, that’s where my thoughts are going. Please chime in with yours.

The post The “no news is good news” open thread appeared first on Watcher of Weasels.

Forum: What Do You Think Europe’s Future Looks Like?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Do You Think Europe’s Future Looks Like?

Don Surber: Arabia.

Stately McDaniel Manor : I suspect that Europe’s future is Islam. Not only are European–and Scandinavian–countries importing the very means of their destruction through more or less unrestrained immigration, they have, as Mark Steyn has often noted, sown the seeds of their own demise by failing to plant the seeds necessary to produce sufficient Europeans to replace themselves. When the birthrate falls below replacement level, as it has in much of Europe, it’s merely a matter of time.

Several other issues will accelerate the decline: Europe has essentially turned away from Christianity and the societal and moral cohesion it provides. There will be no modern crusade, figurative or literal, because far too many Europeans no longer think their faith, or the freedom to practice it as they choose, worth preserving. They simply lack the will to fight–in any way–militant Islam, and have all but invited it to conquer them.

Paris will no longer be the fashion center of the world as female fashions will never again change from year to year.

Some Europeans are beginning to understand that their economic and political systems are abject failures, but it will likely be too late to turn them around, particularly with the European Union still in place. They have, in the name of sophistication and equality of outcome, thrown away the national pride and social ties that might have compelled them to fight their conquerors. Soon, Europe will be too old, too weak, and too morally corrupt to fight. Millennia of civilization will end with a whimper, and a bloody whimper it will be. A shared faith and national pride are two of the main forces that hold any nation together. Europe has essentially abolished all three.

It won’t take long for Germany to run out of money to bail out the rest of the EU, and when they beg America for help, they’ll discover that we are truly the brokest nation in history. If England backs out of the EU, they may have a chance, but the rest of Europe is in real trouble, and until and unless we have a genuine conservative in the Oval Office, and the American people wake up to our very real troubles before it is too late, future nations, Lord knows who or where, will be writing histories about the fall of Europe and America, about how the noble experiment in democracy failed, falling to the barbarian hordes like all before it.

Individual liberty is not the natural state of man. When we forget, as Europe has forgotten, that it must be taught, cherished, and fought for every day by all free men, it is lost. Europe, as a nation of more or less free people, is doomed. Many know it, but as with everything else, they won’t admit it, even to themselves, and they won’t do anything about it.

JoshuaPundit : It really depends. In spite of the failed EU experiment, Europe remains very diverse, so I think we’ll see various outcomes depending on several factor.

The UK’s Brexit vote in June could signal the beginning of the end for the EU. Multiple polling indicates that if the UK leaves,a majority of voters in other countries will want to as well. The EU also didn’t do itself any favors by having its unelected bureaucrats attempt to impose a fine for any EU country refusing Muslim refugees of – wait for it – ‎€ 300,000 per head!

Needless to say, a number of EU members were quick to say that under no circumstances were they going to pay anything like that, especially with a number of members in fiscal chaos. Nor were they going to accept the arbitrary quotas of ‘refugees’ assigned them.

So whether and in what form the EU survives is a big factor, especially when you consider the issue of schengen visas which allow open borders for citizens or legal residents like refugees between member nations. If it survives the present crisis, I think it’s a question of the water circling the drain.

As it is right now, the EU and its currency, the euro primarily benefit Germany because it allows Germany to ship its exports cheaper than it could if the were valued in Deutschmarks. That’s why the Germans have been so willing to bail out other EU members. But even Germany has its limits to what its taxpayers will put up with and that is fast approaching, which brings us to the second factor – massive migration from the Muslim world.

This problem actually began some time ago, in different ways in different countries. Tony Blair in the UK saw bringing vast amounts of Muslims in from places like Pakistan as a source of Labour voters and workers whom would finance the UK’s welfare state. He was right about them being Labour voters, but sadly mistaken about both their ability to assimilate into British society and about their being tax contributors as opposed to being tax money consumers. Similar things contributed to this same situation elsewhere in Europe, particularly in France, Belgium, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands,with the problem being exacerbated by their liberal asylum programs. Most of these people were not actual refugees, but economic migrants as stories spread in the Muslim world about the lavish benefits available.

In Germany as in some of the other countries, the influx was also driven by low birth rates and the need for new workers to finance their massive welfare states. Germany, Italy, Scotland, Greece and a number of other nationalities are actually in danger of becoming extinct in a generation or so. Many of the countries that saw military age young Muslim males as an easy solution to their demographic problems are now finding out to their horror that they’ve imported something very different.

I see Western Europe responding in different ways. It’s an open question whether the UK will avoid becoming a Muslim state no matter how the Brexit vote goes, especially if Charles become King. Sharia is already established there, with Sharia courts mandated for Muslims handling domestic matters. Scotland, which will probably break away from the UK soon seems well on the path to becoming Scotlandistan.

France will probably survive. It has a strong sense of nationhood, a well organized nationalist movement and I could see them,at the least, deporting a fair amount of France’s Muslims. The same is likely true of Denmark and Switzerland, whom have also imported comparatively few Muslims and maintain a stubborn degree of independence.

Norway and Sweden might also survive simply because the tipping point has been so obviously reached. Non-EU Norway at this point is actually offering Muslim migrants money to leave,and if that doesn’t do it they will simply start deporting them. And in Sweden, even the asylum friendly Swedes are finally beginning to fiercely pressure their government.

Belgium will likely split along ethnic lines, with Flanders becoming an independent country. The Netherlands, like the UK is an open question. They have one of the largest percentages of Muslims in Europe, around 6%. Geert Wilder’s Rightist PVV continues to get more and more support in each election and may even take over the government, so we may yet see the Dutch maintain their independence.

Germany is at the point France is. They have a government that is totally unresponsive to them importing people into Germany,a million of them, most of whom make no attempt to assimilate and see Germans, particularly German women as prey. Two things enabled Mutti Merkel to get away with this so far, the traditional German obedience to authority and German experience of the previous Muslim migrants to Germany, mostly from Kurdistan, Turkey and Iran. These migrants assimilated and behaved quite differently from the kind of people Merkel has now foisted upon the country. The Germans are revolting, and their rightist, Euro-skeptic nationalist party, AfD “Alternative for Germany” is doing quite well politically.

The one constraint for a lot of Germans with wholesale deportations is memories of Germany’s actions under the Nazis. To steal a line from the always superb Spengler, if that’s a problem, they can just do what they did last time – hire Ukrainians.

Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece aside from stagnant economies and poisonous demographics have another misfortune…they’re geographically close to the Muslim world. Young native Greeks, Spaniards and Portuguese whom are able to are actually fleeing these countries because there are no jobs or futures for them there. Spain is so desperate for taxpaying residents that they have, ironically, started a special ‘fast track’ program for Jewish migrants whom have ancestors whom were expelled in 1492. There haven’t been many takers. i think there’s a distinct possibility of a reverse Reconquista in at least Southern Spain and Portugal unless things change. Italy may see the same.

New Europe is an entirely different proposition. These countries have taken in few Muslims, are relatively new to freedom after decades of Soviet tyranny and have functioning militaries. In response to what they quite rightly see as Obama’s treachery, some of these countries have joined together in a military alliance outside of NATO known as the Visegrád Group, consisting of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Don’t be surprised if you likewise see co-ordination with Germany,Romania, the Baltic states and perhaps even Russia.

The reason is the third factor in Europe’s future, Turkey. Tayyip Erdoğan and his Islamist AKP have assumed a virtual dictatorship over the country, and even his erstwhile partner, former Erdoğan loyalist and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has been forced out of office after a few disagreements with Erdoğan.

Turkey also has a relatively stagnant economy with a huge credit bubble on the verge of bursting, a growing population and the largest conventional army in Europe. Don’t be surprised if you see Turkey do exactly what the Ottomans did in the past,attempt to expand and plunder Europe via the historic route through the Balkans, hooking up with Muslim enclaves in Bosnia, Albania and Kossovo.

Since Erdoğan and the AKP took over, Turkey has never taken its role as a NATO ally particularly seriously. Since the road to the Caucasus is now blocked by Iran and Turkey’s historic antagonist Russia, Europe is the other alternative. Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria lack the military power to stave off the Turks and the Serbs would be outflanked on three sides. While this would call for an Article 5 intervention from NATO, I doubt that an Islamist friendly Obama or Clinton administration would do more than token military assistance.

The last thing Russia wants is the Turkish military on its borders, so Russia might very well intervene. Certainly the Visegrád Group would and we could literally see another major battle at the Gates of Vienna.

What Turkey does will be the third major factor in Europe’s future, and it might even be a positive, uniting one if the scenario I’m exploring here becomes reality.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD : “A large Mohammedist minority is in Europe to stay. Persisting with the establishment’s approach makes a certain sense: keep a lid on prejudice, tamp down extremism, and hope that time will transform the zealous Mohammedism of recent immigrants into a more liberal form of faith, and make the conflict go away.

Or least keep it manageable … The most likely scenario for Europe isn’t dhimmitude; it’s a long period of tension, punctuated by spasms of violence, that makes the Continent a more unpleasant place without fundamentally transforming it.”

Skippy Lipchitz’s happy happy version not so long ago.

Between the financial crisis and the migration of a million combat age males from Mohammedist world, Europa will face an ever scary future of uprisings, successions, unification battles, independence battles a probably a few wars
Start with continuing concerns about the finances of so-called southern peripheral countries. The Greek bailout of 2015 created strong and lingering resentments in Germany and other creditor nations of northern Europe. This bailout was the third in five years, and it will not be the last. Some are now forecasting a new Greek default early this summer. Portugal’s sinking economy may also need rescue soon. The Portuguese and Greek governments united recently to denounce what they view as the European Union’s relentless, draconian austerity measures. Meanwhile, Italy struggles to manage its own excessive debt, low growth, high unemployment, and severe banking crisis. Spain is on the verge of breaching its deficit targets for the ninth consecutive year. A familiar refrain in Germany goes, “We shovel money south, while they pretend to reform, and we pretend to believe them.”

The refugee crisis may well become a serious threat to Europe’s cohesion and security. Amid the hundreds of thousands of displaced and suffering, there are jihadist infiltrators, with the number of suspects now so large they are nearly impossible for authorities to track. German authorities have confirmed that roughly 3,800 blank Syrian passports are in the possession of Islamic State. The probability of fresh attacks in the next few years will remain high.

But there’s another daunting problem: how to integrate such large numbers of Mohammedist refugees? Germany alone has already taken in roughly 1.1 million homeless from Syria and elsewhere since the summer of 2015. While it’s difficult to obtain precise data, a decent number of refugees are apparently poorly educated; by some estimates, as many as 20 percent may be illiterate. Even if most are able to join the workforce over time, can they become part of European society?

It’s foolish and dangerous to deny the fact that many Europeans will not welcome these newcomers, just as it is obvious that many of these newcomers — largely from socially conservative and in some instances militantly illiberal backgrounds — will have little enthusiasm for joining life in liberal, progressive Europe.

So far, Europe’s success in integrating Mohammedists has been mixed at best. A senior Central European politician LOL’d the current problem in a semi private communique as, “the land of full mosques invading the continent of empty churches.”

Also there is the the enduring strategic problem of Mitteleuropa, a fragmented region suspended between larger powers by virtue of geography, language, and culture. As it emerged from the last age of empire, Woodrow Wilson sought to re-anchor the region through self determination, a short experiment as weak states were preyed upon by more capable neighbors. A perpetual source of instability at best, Tim Snyder described it as the “Bloodlands” at its worst. Robert Kaplan, quoting Josef Pilsudski, founder of the second Polish Republic, refers to the need for an “Intermarium” group of unaffiliated democratic states between the Baltic and Black Seas.

While it is obviously desirable if these countries are also democracies, it would mark an important step towards a sustainable security system if they had a reasonable ability to defend themselves and were at least not constantly in play between larger alliances. At a minimum, this could buy time, giving Russian strategic culture an opportunity to mellow, grow beyond its post-imperial ambitions, and learn to live within the boundaries of a modern nation state.

The Glittering Eye : Beats me. The people of the ethnic states of Europe have choices to make. They can retain the ethnic identities they’ve built for themselves or they can accept mass immigration from the Middle East and Africa. They can’t do both which is what they’ve been trying do to.

Don’t think they can’t put the ethnic identity Humpty Dumpty together again. It would require expelling and or killing millions. They’ve done it before. Multiple times.

The idea of Europe seems to be dying a painful death one way or the other.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason :The future of Europe looks much like the rest of the Western world as progressives prey on the emotions of its citizens to gain power through democratic means. Although not familiar with the grooming of young Muslims to aspire to positions in government and elected office in Europe, it is happening in America locally, across every state and nationwide. I assume the same forces promoting civilization jihad in America are also behind the efforts in Europe.

Just this last week the city of London elected its first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, of the Labour Party. His platform of making London more “fair” for all and tackling the issues of affordable housing, freezing commuter fares, creating jobs, and pushing for cleaner energy could well be the platform of any progressive mayoral candidate in any large American city. Populists appeal to the emotions of the voters, who don’t see the emptiness of their promises until it is too late.

As more Muslims are elected to office in Europe they will pursue acceptance of shari’ah over existing laws under the guise of “fairness” and understanding of cultural differences. We are already seeing reports of sexual attacks by Muslim men against European woman, and government officials are telling women to dress more modestly or stay indoors to avoid attacks. This sends a message that the victims are somehow responsible for these attacks. This is shari’ah. In addition, we have to remember these countries have very strict gun control laws so self defense is difficult.

The experiment of the European Union is failing as some countries and their people are bearing a disproportionate financial burden and resentment continues to build. There will be a backlash of Europeans who will attempt to reassert their cultural dominance… kind of a “Make (insert country here) Great Again” platform which will eventually lead to internal chaos and violence as these factions clash. Europe is becoming ripe for a despot or dictator.

Read this article:  

Forum: What Do You Think Europe’s Future Looks Like?


Article written by: Tom White

I Urge My Readers to Ponder This When Considering the Muslim Question

I hope all of us will try to find opportunities to reassure Muslims in this country that we are ashamed of and completely disavow the recent widely publicized statements proposing that Muslims should be treated differently from other people.

My friend who lives next door is from Bosnia. He was among the Bosnians who became encircled by the Serbian army in 1995 and fled for their lives. For six days, from Srebrenica to Tuzla the Serbian army tried to kill them by virtually all means available as they desperately tried to walk the 70 miles to a refugee camp in a safe area guarded by UN forces, including U.S. Marines. Of the 15,000 men who set off back then, only 3,500 made it through Serb lines

At times, with difficulty, my friend has talked with me some about that horrible ordeal. After recounting some of the horrors of their desperate flight, and the anguish of the people unavoidably left behind to face certain death, my friend, with a mixture of tears and joy on his face, looked up at me and said, “At last, when we saw a U.S. Marine, we knew we were safe.”

Earlier this year, my friend worked hard to pass the written test to become a U.S. citizen.

My friend loves this country passionately. He works hard. He is a wonderful friend and neighbor, a good man. He embraces and adheres to “American values” more fully than lots of folks I know who were born in this country.

My friend is a Muslim.

I keep hearing the anti-Muslim talk on the news, and every time I hear it I cringe, I wonder and worry, What do people like my friend think? How is this affecting them?

From time to time, I raise these questions with him.

Last night I stopped by, and my friend said for the most part, he ignores such talk and he knows that is not what most people in this country think.

At one point, though, he said, “The only thing, though, is when they talk about Islamic terrorists, that hurts me. Because these killers are not Islamic. That’s not Islam. That’s not my faith. These people are crazy killers. They are not Islam.”

Right after he said that, right after I decried and condemned the kinds of things that are being said by some folks and said how much I wish those things were not being said, I got a Lesson in Democracy and American Values.

My friend looked at me and said, “But Roger, you have to accept that people can say these things. This is America. We have freedom of speech here in our country.”

It was a wonderful and profound Lesson in Democracy and American Values.

Nevertheless, I am deeply saddened by the hurt and damage that is being caused by the recent comments and proposals that would single out Muslims for different treatment.

Not only do I regret the hurt and damage these anti-Muslim comments are causing, I worry that those comments and proposals actually serve the goals of the terrorists–which is to divide us and eliminate the “gray zone” in society. [This was recently discussed in a column in the W Post].

The gray zone is the area where all of us, including Muslims, can peacefully live together even though we are of different faiths, backgrounds, etc. The terrorists want to pit us against each other, and thereby eliminate the “middle ground” where we can peacefully live together, and instead force devout Muslims to choose between virtually giving up their faith and/or concealing it and their background, or increasingly sympathizing with the extremists and radicals.

One of the impacts of anti-Muslim talk is to make Muslims less able and less inclined to assimilate as part of the broader community of many faiths, many backgrounds, etc. There was an NPR story just yesterday on a study that confirmed this. And of course it is common sense.

My prayer is that all of us and each of us will try to find opportunities to reassure Muslims that we do not share the views being expressed that Muslims should be treated differently–we disavow and decry and reject those views.

My prayer is that all of us and each of us will ask Muslims in our communities to immediately call us and tell us if they experience any anti-Muslim treatment (vandalism of their mosques, threats, insults, etc.) so that we can join with them in addressing any such problems.

My prayer is that all of us and each of us will become and be good friends to Muslims in our communities. We have much to offer them. And I think we will find that they have as much, if not more, to offer us. Among other things, they can help us in our journey to a more complete understanding and embracing of the values and principles we hope this country will stand for.

Sincerely,

Roger

Roger T. Creager

Blogger’s Note: Creager is an excellent trial and appellate lawyer, very thorough and capable and I am proud to know him as a good colleague.  We are fellow members of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association.  This is reprinted here with his permission.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

The Spirit of Fear and the “Syrian” Refugee Crisis

The Syrian Refugee crisis has created dramatic divisions amongst Americans and amongst millions of Europeans across the EU. On the one side, we have people who don’t want anymore Muslims let into their countries; and on the other side, you have people who feel that these refugees are in need and deserve help. On both sides we are witnessing the inevitable results of fear. Fear is one of the most debilitating and toxic psychological states and has consequently clouded both sides of this debate, and has prevented any hope for a thoughtful or rational dialogue.

The most common cause of hatred is fear, mixed with a dash of powerlessness. Hatred of people groups is almost always fear driven. Muslim children throughout the world are taught to fear the Jews, the Zionists, the little Satan. Surrounded by her enemies, Israel still stands, attributed to Israel’s manipulation of global powers, and due to her protection by the Great Satan, America. The hatred of Israelis is palpable throughout Arabia, Africa, Persia, and the Near East. All because of lies ingrained in the minds of children. There is no reasoning with them.

shariaHatred of Muslims is also derived from fear. The Islamist reign of terror has stretched across the globe in its’ attempt to spread Islamic Orthodoxy and to establish Islamic Caliphates. Many Muslim immigrants have fled the tyrannical rule of Sharia Law and the civil wars between Sunni and Shi’ite throughout the Muslim World. Westerners witness the chaos, the beheadings, the crucifixions, the burnings, the drownings, and 7 year old children parading the severed heads of their victims down city streets, and they are afraid. Many citizens of the Western World do not trust their governments to deal with this violence. In The United States, we’re equally depressed by our government’s role in the creation of most of these terrorist threats. We armed AQ, we armed ISIS, we armed Saddam Hussein. With no government to trust in dealing with these threats, fear plus powerlessness becomes a blanket of hatred – irrational and applied absolutely toward all Muslims.

Frightened by fear, others in the Western World have swung wide upon that pendulum’s swing, arguing that there are no reasons for fear in the first place, arguing that anyone in need should be helped, regardless of the cultural dissonance and persuasion of those seeking refuge. Terrified of those they see as bigots, they abandon all reason and merely come to the rescue and aid of those they feel are being treated harshly.

In the end, everyone comes out looking like fools. We’ve got half the people across social media trying as hard as they can to demonstrate just how little they know about the Bible, trying to use it to justify one position or the other. We’ve got people who are against an open borders Hispanic migration, demanding we bring in 100,000 Middle Eastern refugees. This is what happens when governments do nothing. Everyone becomes powerless. Everyone freaks out. They all get mixed up in hate or cowardly abandon reason in order to resist the hate they see around them in favor of appeasement.

I would offer advice, but you cannot reason with fear. You cannot reason with those captured by hate and you cannot reason with those desperately clinging to appeasement. What I will say, is this: The world is being forced to deal with a global revival of Islamic Orthodoxy and it has proved itself ill-equipped to do so. Those who have embraced the Marxist-attitude that need is a claim upon the obligation of others are half the problem. Those embracing hatred of all Muslims are the other half of the problem. Check yourself. Hatred is a result of fear. Do not be afraid. Be rational, objective, and deliberate. Demand a better government, one that leaves us less susceptible to terror here at home and one which no longer finances it abroad.

 

 


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Struggling With Islam: How a Tolerant Western Civilization has Caved to Intolerance

Western Civilization had enough of religious persecution. Millions fled religious persecution in Europe for The New World in America, but the battle for tolerance and liberty was not only won here in The States, but all across the Western World in general. This is not to say that we have not had to continue to struggle for religious liberty and against religious bigotry. In fact, no freedom that exists today exists without the constant struggle to preserve it. Tolerance, however, has its limits – as does freedom. If intolerance is tolerated and if freedom becomes a conduit for persecution, then a society must push back and become intolerant of intolerance, and violent towards violence. Otherwise, we not longer live by our virtues, but rather die by them.

6841The “Left” (primarily the Democrat Socialists in the Americas and in Europe) continue to bury their heads in the sand; so long as there is one peaceful Muslim left on earth, they will argue that we cannot address Islam as a problem itself, because not all Muslims are violent extremists. At the heart of the issue, and in principle, they are correct. We cannot condemn and destroy all Muslims because of the violent and vicious acts of those determined to enact Political Islam across the world.  On the contrary, we must not respond absolutely to a non-absolute. This does not mean, however, that we refuse to confront the dangers of Political Islam in the West and across the world.

Let me define Political Islam: Political Islam is any strain of Islamic thought which includes the implementation of Islamic beliefs into government at any level. Our struggle is not merely against violent Islamists like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, but against peaceful Muslims who seek to enforce Islamic Law and Culture in societies where these laws and norms are foreign.

Tolerance for our worlds religions ought to remain only in accordance with the following principle: that no law or act of government shall come between any individual and their peaceful practice of their personal faith. That’s it. The moment any religious individual moves beyond the peaceful practice of their faith, into politics, policy, and law, we have a very serious problem on our hands.

We must be intolerant of all politically motivated religious movements, regardless of their particular brand of religion. We must remain intolerant of intolerance. Therefore, we cannot be tolerance of people’s tolerance of intolerance. We cannot accept the excuse, that while peaceful Muslims are not engaging in violence that this is the end of their responsibility. Our society and our government, our Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Pagan citizens together must be intolerant of intolerance.

Surprisingly, I cannot hear to the outrage in the face of Islamist terror across the world. Everyone seems to either want to ignore it or to excuse it. Why? Doing nothing is the same as doing something., It is the act of refusing to take responsibility for an evil in our world; and that is an act in support of evil.

Now, I call it evil because what we are addressing is a violent movement aimed at achieving political and religious goals in absolute opposition to and with no tolerance for dissent.

If we, as American citizens, are under constant threat from legal immigrants from Muslim Countries, then we must, as Rand Paul suggested, begin limiting immigrants from these countries. At the very least, we ought to be increasing our screening processes, but how we could refuse to limit immigration at this point is beyond me.

This responsible reaction to Islamic violence is not an act of force, no one will be harmed, defrauded, or persecuted. We are simply stating that we are intolerant of religious violence in America and are willing to take steps to reduce that violence and to reduce that threat. This is an action which Europe has failed to take and is suffering greatly from today. We too, are being to see the folly in our permissive tolerance.

Yet, I cannot see our politicians ever coming to terms with this. They are held hostage by absolutism. Not all Muslims are dangerous, therefore we cannot react to events and realities which are specific or isolated. Yet, if we do not react broadly to the specific, then we are essentially saying that we are willing to suffer the specifics and will simply deal with the consequences as they occur; because we refuse to put in place policies in general designed to nullify the particulars.

Every peacefully practicing religious person in all of Western Civilization should be treated with love and respect; but we cannot ignore where the threats we face come from and we cannot choose to do nothing to prevent the violence we are seeing throughout the Western World. We cannot be held captive by our principles, by absolutist logic, or by our tolerance of intolerance. Our government must act to protect the American People. Political Islam is a threat to our freedom of religion, to our Bill of Rights, to our freedom of expression, and to innumerable other liberties won by the blood of patriots. Sacrificing our liberty or security in the name of religious tolerance is utterly absurd and will incur, if not cause, untold catastrophes.

 


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker