Sunday, October 16, 2016
Saturday, October 15, 2016
The Most Explosive WikiLeaks Clinton Revelations (So Far)
Here is a rundown of some of the biggest bombshells dropped by WikiLeaks’ disclosure of Hillary Clinton’s speeches and emails, and why each is so important.
1. Clinton dreams of a world with “open trade and open borders”: Every American should understand that Democrats, and plenty of Republicans, are fighting an all-out war against national sovereignty. Sure, Democrats want new voters, and Republican interests want cheap labor, but they also share a mutual desire to increase the distance between the Ruling Class and voters. In the globalist future, political and business titans will stand atop the world, without having to worry about fulfilling annoying duties to grubby little voters with nostalgic memories of the days when American politicians served America’s interests. Globalism means you’ll never be able to vote against anything.2. Clinton courted business elites to support liberal agenda to beat back populism: Clinton’s speeches include numerous examples of something that’s hardly new, or unique to her, but a very important harbinger of things to come if she gets into the White House. Democrats serve their voters a steady stream of anti-business, anti-wealth rhetoric, but they’re keenly interested in using Big Business to promote the agenda of Big Government. Some of the examples in the leaked speeches, such as Clinton urging business interests to beat back the Tea Party and support open-borders immigration, are points of common interest with the GOP Establishment.
3. Clinton campaign coordinated with Super PAC: No one familiar with the WikiLeaks disclosures should be able to restrain their laughter when Hillary Clinton talks about getting “big money” and “dark money” out of politics. Then again, she should have been laughed off the stage for such tirades long before WikiLeaks started releasing her campaign’s emails.
4. Clinton admitted she has different “public and private positions” on Wall Street reform: Again, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s always useful to catch a politician actually admitting she isn’t honest with the public on issues – especially an issue of keen interest to the Democrats who opposed her in the primary. In the same issue, she admitted she’s out of touch with ordinary Americans and “far removed” from middle-class life, which is a refreshing bit of (unintended) candor from such a sanctimonious candidate and Party. Lastly, she said it was an “oversimplification” to blame banks for the 2008 financial meltdown, which is true – and greatly understating the truth of Democrat politicians’ culpability, at that – but not at all what Democrat hyper-partisans want to hear from their leaders.
5. Clinton campaign asked about using White House executive privilege to hide emails from Congress: “Think we should hold emails to and from POTUS? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that,” John Podesta – current Clinton campaign chair, and former White House counsel – wrote to Hillary’s aide Cheryl Mills, even as the House Benghazi Committee was writing a subpoena for Clinton’s long-hidden correspondence. It’s absolutely shocking that Team Clinton would think Barack Obama was willing to abuse executive privilege to hide vital information from Congress. Wherever did they get that outrageous idea?
6. Clinton campaign looked for political support from “needy Latinos”: This is the perfect example of an email chain that would set the media on fire, if it came from a Republican political campaign. They seem to have been talking about Latino politicians who were needy, rather than herds of Latino voters, but they were colorfully insulting to some of those politicians.
7. Collusion with State Department on managing Clinton’s email scandal: It’s pretty clear from these emails that Clinton’s team knew she broke the law, but they were (justifiably) confident they could trump the rule of law with politics… and plenty of help from their good friends in the Obama Administration. Other emails illustrate the Clinton team’s conviction that all Democrat scandals can be overcome with distractions and delaying tactics, counting on that 90% Democrat media to be easily distracted, and to stay quiet while stonewalls are constructed. You will see more collusion and stonewalling in future Democrat Administrations, building on the precedents Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton established. The next Republican Administration that tries it will get a swift and brutal lesson in why scandal management only works when the administrative state and media support the party in power.
8. “Journalists” secretly working as enthusiastic volunteers for Clinton/Kaine 2016: Another one to file under “no big surprise, but still nice to see it on paper.” The American public needs to understand there is no real division between the government and media when a Democrat is in the White House, especially with this particular Democrat. The press loved Barack Obama and was childishly easy for him to spin at will, even during the queasy Fifty Shades of Grey stages of their romantic relationship, but the press is Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They’re her donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, and often her former (and future!) employees. If you didn’t think the media could be less interested in holding a president accountable than Obama, you’re in for a shock if Clinton wins.
9. Planting the “seeds of revolution” in the “Middle Ages dictatorship” of the Catholic Church: Democrats view Christians in almost exactly the terms they adamantly refuse to apply to Islamic supremacists. They’re also very determined to infiltrate institutions that resist liberalism, subverting them from within, and destroying them if they refuse to be subverted. Check out the latest news about the National Football League for another example.
10. Clinton Cash panicked the campaign: They knew how bad this stuff was, and they wasted no time devising strategies to spin it away. They didn’t have much trouble convincing the press to stop bugging Clinton about the galaxy of Clinton Foundation scandals, did they? With Republicans, the media works hard to set up denials that look uncomfortable, or which they think can be demolished by later revelations. With Democrats, not so much.
11. Flip-flopping on TPP: It’s amazing than a single Sanders voter ever believed Clinton was honest about opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but evidently most of them did, or else they never really cared about the issue as much as they claimed to. Leaked emails reveal how Clinton was not “comfortable” with attacking the trade deal she once gushed over as the “gold standard” for such agreements, but she knew she had to pretend to oppose it to placate union bosses and woo the Sanderistas. Clinton campaign staff talked about her “integrity” as though it were a stack of poker chips, deeming it reasonable to sacrifice a little integrity to keep the Sanders insurrection under control.
12. Gun control: cherry-picked data and executive orders: Democrats are going to lose patience with voter opposition to their gun control agenda and begin imposing it, as soon as they no longer have to worry about losing a tough election in the near future. They often worry about the potential backlash from Democrat voters in key states who support gun rights, but they’ll stop worrying about that soon, especially if Clinton does extremely well in those states. A packed Supreme Court will make her even bolder about chipping away at the Second Amendment. No one should be surprised that Democrats like to pick and choose which crimes the public should focus upon, in order to sell the gun control agenda.
13. Special favors for “Friends of Bill” in Haiti: The Clintons’ use of Haiti as a cash machine was disgusting. The hypocrisy of liberals willing to ignore this carnival of corruption, at the expense of an impoverished black nation, to slip the Clintons back into the White House is unbearable. The corruption of the State Department into a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton, Inc. should be completely unacceptable.
14. Iran nuclear deal was “greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler”: This email chain quotes Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois saying Obama’s nuclear deal “condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf,” and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta responding, “Yup.” While the Democrats figure out how to spin that away, the rest of us can reflect that Clinton, Podesta, and other old hands in her inner circle probably have significant differences of opinion with Barack Obama and his teenage-punk approach to foreign policy. Obama and his weird little gang of young advisers thought it would be a great idea to do the opposite of everything his predecessors did, Republican and Democrat alike. The Clinton group worked in one of those preceding Administrations. However, Mrs. Clinton and all of her loyal retainers were willing to stifle their objections to Obama’s foreign policy in the name of party loyalty… even when those objections hinted at a future nuclear war.
15. Clinton wanted to run against Donald Trump in 2016: The three Republican candidates Clinton’s campaign thought they had the best chance of beating were Trump, Ben Carson, and Senator Ted Cruz. “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” said a memo sent to the Democratic National Committee. They were quite confident of their ability to tell the press which Republican candidates it should take seriously.
16. Clinton knew Libya was a disaster: Her hindsight about the bloody, world-destabilizing fallout from the overthrow of Qaddafi, and the inability of the new Libyan government to provide security for Americans, was 20/20… but what good does that do anyone, especially the Americans who died in Benghazi? It’s laughable to hear Clinton and her supporters brag about her great resume. Her resume is the world outside your window, and what she says about it to her big donors is very different from what she says to the general public.
17. “Foreign govt donors: all the money is in”: The Clinton team is much more relaxed about discussing big bucks from overseas among themselves. They don’t want the public thinking about how much support Clinton gets from foreign interests, or dwelling on how unsavory some of those interests are. They were reluctant to disclose all of those foreign donors to the Obama Administration as they promised. But the leaked emails show they’re very well aware of how important that imported cash is. This particular email seems to concern locking down foreign financial support for the Clinton Foundation, in case Mrs. and Mr. Clinton find themselves back in the White House next year.
18. Clinton Foundation audit reveals it may have misled the IRS: One of the perks of Clintonhood is that you can file taxes incorrectly, suffer no penalties whatsoever, and refile the paperwork years later. A 2011 audit of the Clinton Foundation requested by Chelsea Clinton discovered that, despite sworn statements to the IRS, the Foundation didn’t write or enforce the required conflict-of-interest policy… and, wouldn’t you know it, some conflicts of interest do seem to have cropped up! Two years later, long after Hillary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State, gift acceptance policies were still a work in progress.
Breitbart
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Monday, October 3, 2016
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Monday, July 25, 2016
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Monday, July 4, 2016
A REAL ISLAM POLICY FOR A REAL AMERICA
Preserving Western Civilization Conference
Baltimore, Maryland
February 8, 2009
To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.
The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.
This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.
To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.
What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.
You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam is a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration.
Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.
The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.
To understand how this unnatural and anti-human liberal belief came into existence and gained such power over us, we need to understand the natural and human order that the liberal belief is attacking.
I would like to quote the Book of Ecclesiasticus:
In much knowledge the Lord hath divided [men], and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned out of their places. (Ecclesiasticus, 33)
Every beast loveth his like and every man loveth his neighbor. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like. (Ecclesiasticus, 13.15.)This passage beautifully expresses the true order of the world in which we live, the world in which men have always lived, but which modern liberalism denies and demonizes. That world can be explained in terms of two dimensions, which I call the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is the relationship between ourselves and that which is above us and below us, that which is better and worse, that which is more true and less true, the relation between God and man.
The horizontal axis is the relationship between entities on the same level, between different people in the same society, or between different societies or different cultures.
On the horizontal axis, the question is: how similar are things to each other? How different are they from each other? How well do they get along? On the vertical axis, the question is, what are the standards by which we live? What is good behavior, what is bad behavior? To what extent are we following the good, to what extent are we falling short of it or turning away from it?
I would add that one doesn’t need to be a Christian or a religious believer to know that this hierarchical order of the world exists. There are many aspects of the order of being that can be grasped through natural reason alone.
What I’m saying here is nothing fancy or metaphysical, it’s something that all people know by common sense. We live within these two dimensions—the better and the worse, the more like and the less like—in everything we do.
That is, we did live within them, until modern liberalism came along and said that it’s wrong to discriminate between higher and lower, it’s wrong to discriminate between better and worse, it’s wrong to discriminate between like and unlike.
Modern liberalism says that there cannot be a truth or a standard higher than ourselves by which our actions are judged, because that would make some people better in relation to that standard than other people.
In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us.
The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature. It prohibits normal authority such as the authority of parents and teachers over children. It banished the very idea of a morality that men ought to follow. And even God is banished if he’s a God who has any claims on us.
This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.
This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.
I said at the beginning that we had to be realistic about the Islam problem. That meant understanding the forces that at present make it impossible for us as a society to discuss Islam honestly, let alone to do anything about it.
Realistically, from where we are now, a solution to the Islam problem is so far away it’s as though it were on another planet, another world, where liberalism has lost its stranglehold, allowing non-liberal things to be said and done.
Now it’s not only by conservative resistance that liberalism might be stopped. Liberalism may collapse of its own contradictions and irrationality. Liberals may slowly move to more realistic understandings. A recent example was a column by Ralph Peters in which he said that the entire nation of Afghanistan, all Afghans, are radically incompatible with ourselves. Given that Peters in his basic outlook is a vehement liberal, constantly waging war against bigotry and condemning the whole continent of Europe as incipient Nazis, that was a amazing thing for him to say. If that kind of understanding of the real differences between Muslims and ourselves expands, then even without liberals explicitly renouncing liberalism, they may perhaps move far enough away from liberalism to allow America to begin to adopt sensible policies with regard to Islam.
And other things may happen, acts of God, disasters, economic depressions, or unprecedented terrorist attacks, that may shock society out of its liberal attitudes.
But we don’t know that any of those things will happen, and we cannot count on their happening or on their having the effects we may hope for. Our task as Western patriots is to argue against modern liberalism, showing its falsity and destructiveness, showing that modern liberalism is wrong not just in its excesses, but in its fundamentals, because it is incompatible with our continued existence as a society. And in that process, all of the attitudes which modern liberalism enforces—the suppression of discussion about Islam, the suppression of discussion about immigration, the suppression of discussion about race differences and their significance—will be weakened, because each of those prohibitions is based on the idea that discrimination is the greatest sin.
Now that we have acknowledged the currently existing reality, and the tremendous change of thought that would be required to change it, let us take the imaginative and hopeful leap to a different reality, a reality in which society might actually do something about Islam rather than surrender to slow extinction at its hands.
What would be a real Islam policy for a real America? If there were a non-liberal president of the United States, and if he had enough support in the media and the Congress to get his program through, what would he do, and how would he propose it?
So now, as I begin to speak as that imaginary president might speak, let us imagine that we have leaped from our present planet of liberalism, where a solution is impossible, to the planet of reality. It may seem infinitely remote, but it is no farther away than a change in thought.
I come before you this evening to discuss an unprecedented challenge in the history of our Republic, which will require unprecedented measures to meet it. We must think anew and act anew. But, in reality, what we must do is not new at all. It is the way things used to be, before we went so badly astray.
In my speech last week I spoke to you about the nature and doctrines of the Islamic religion; of the permanent state of war that it establishes between itself and all non-Muslim societies; of its ultimate aim of subjugating all of humanity to the law of Islam, known as the sharia; and of the fact that all believing Muslims, whether they are fanatics or moderates, whether they are jihad warriors or people who only believe in spreading sharia peacefully, are all part of one Islamic community, all strengthening in their respective ways the Islamic political agenda of bringing all non-Muslims under the rule of Islam.
I spoke of how, since the spread and imposition of sharia is a central function and goal of Islam, any increase in the number and influence of Muslims in a non-Muslim society helps advance sharia.
It is important to understand that what makes Islam dangerous to non-Muslims is not that Muslims are morally bad people. The problem is not that Muslims are bad people, the problem is that they are good Muslims. Our concern is with the religion and the political ideology of Islam, which makes all Muslims dangerous to us, since all Muslims, even if they personally have no aggressive intentions, even if they are personally fine and lovely people, are part of the Islamic community and owe their highest loyalty to Islam. Therefore any increase in the number of Muslims among us means an increase in the power of Islam and the further spread of the Islamic law.
My purpose is not to promote hostility against Muslim persons or to spark civilizational warfare between the West and Islam, but to reduce and end the current increasing civilizational warfare, by separating Islam from the West. We respect the right of Muslims to follow in peace their religion in their lands. But in order for us Americans to follow in peace our religions and flourish in our way of life, the followers of sharia need to leave our country and return to the historic lands of Islam.
I therefore will propose to the Congress tomorrow the following measures, which shall be called the
American Freedom from Islam Act.
- With the exception of immediate family members of U.S. citizens, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other legitimate purposes, all entry into the United States of foreign persons known or determined to be followers of the religion of Islam, whatever their nationality or country of residence, shall cease.
- Any Muslim person with a temporary visa for business or diplomacy who advocates or promotes jihad shall lose his visa.
- Any resident alien who openly espouses jihad or who participates in any pro-jihad activities or organizations will lose his residency status and be deported.
- No resident alien who adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrine of jihad, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the doctrine of jihad and have no association with pro-jihad activities and pro-jihad persons.
- Naturalized citizens, whether they were naturalized before or after the passage of this law, who associate with jihad supporters or participate in pro-jihad activities, have shown that their oath of loyalty to the United States was fraudulent. Their citizenship shall be revoked and they shall be deported.
- All mosques, Islamic centers and schools that promote jihad or sharia in any form will be closed.
- The United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim naturalized citizens and their native-born descendants by offering all Muslim persons over the age of eighteen $50,000 each in a one-time fee to give up any claim of U.S. residency or citizenship, to return to their native land, and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States.
Also, these measures imply that America would have to become a kind of police state, forever overseeing its Muslim citizens, examining their statements and activities, turning America into something we, and certainly I, do not want it to become.
For these reasons further steps are needed, aimed not just at stopping and reversing the growth of jihad support in America, but at stopping and reversing the growth of sharia in America. And to reverse the growth of sharia in America means to reverse the growth of Islam in America, through the forcible or voluntary departure of sharia-believing Muslims.
Therefore I shall propose these additional measures:
- Any legal resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;
- No resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the Islamic doctrine of sharia and have no association with pro-sharia activities.
- Any naturalized citizen who violates this oath shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States.
- Any mosque or Islamic center in the United States that promotes or seeks to spread the sharia law shall be closed.
But now we need to consider a further problem. The measures enumerated so far will inevitably be attacked as in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, in order for the measures that I’ve proposed to stand and not be overturned, we must have a further law stating that the First Amendment does not apply to Islam, does not protect the free exercise of the religion of Islam, because Islam is not only a religion, it is a political movement aimed at establishing tyrannical power over non-Muslims, and specifically aimed at overturning our Constitution, laws, and liberties.
However, even such a radical law would not get us out of the woods, because it also could be overturned as in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, in order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is.
And that, my fellow Americans, is precisely what the Constitution is supposed to be about. After the Civil War, slavery was prohibited, not by statute or presidential proclamation, but by an amendment to the Constitution declaring that slavery has no place in the United States. The same needs to be done with regard to the slavery that is Islam.
Such an amendment will be immune to any constitutional challenges, because it will be part of the Constitution itself. It will encourage many Muslims, at least those who care about their religion, and those are the ones we are most concerned about, to leave the United States on their own, without our having to do anything to make them leave, such as constructing a vast bureaucracy to investigate them and deport them. Simply as a result of our saying to them, “We have nothing against you as human beings, but your religion is a mortal danger to our entire way of life, and we cannot permit it to remain here,” the Muslims among us will begin to depart in a steady stream to the Islamic world, or perhaps to other Western countries where Islam is still welcome. It is my hope, however, that all Western countries will adopt laws similar to what I am urging here, resulting in the voluntary return of the great majority of believing Muslims in the West to the Muslim lands.
Here then is the constitutional amendment that I shall propose to the Congress:
Section 1. The religion of Islam, as propagated in the Koran and in the Islamic Traditions or Hadiths, and formalized in the Sharia Law, shall not be practiced, disseminated, or advocated within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. This article supersedes any contrary provision of this Constitution and of the laws of the United States.Now that I have spoken to the American people about the steps we must take to preserve our freedoms and our very nationhood, I would like to speak to the Muslims of the world who are listening to me tonight.
I repeat that I have no ill will against you as people. I act with no animosity. I act in recognition of reality. And the reality is—and you know it, and now you know that we know it—that your religion commands you to make all peoples and societies submit to the Islamic law, wherever and whenever you have the power and opportunity to do so.
And one of the opportunities that have been presented to you is immigration. A half century ago, when we of the West began to admit large numbers of Muslim immigrants, we were, though we did not realize it, replicating what the city of Medina did in the year 622 when it invited Muhammad and his followers to emigrate there from Mecca. The most famous event in the history of Islam, the event with which the Islamic calendar begins, was an act of immigration. Muhammad and his followers moved to Medina, and within two years he had become the dictator of Medina, and Islamic law ruled in that city. That is a paradigm of Islamic expansion.
When we invited you Muslims into the West, we were, without knowing it, imitating what the Medinans did 1,400 years ago. You saw the significance of what we were doing, and you couldn’t believe the opportunity that we had handed to you. You had never imagined that we would do this.
But we did it, we gave you the opportunity. And now we have to close off that opportunity by reversing the policies that brought you here.
I repeat, these proposals do not threaten you. We respect the religion of Islam when practiced by Muslims in their own countries. We have no designs on Islam. You have nothing to fear from us. We do not threaten you and your way of life. But you, as a religion and as a political movement commanded by your god to subjugate the entire world, most certainly threaten us. But you can only threaten us if you are in our lands. When you are in your own lands you pose no direct danger to us.
So, Muslims of the world, let us go on sharing in peace this beautiful earth that God created. But in order for there to be peace between us, there must also be fences between us.
Good night. God bless America, God bless Western civilization, and God bless the peoples of the world.
View from the Right
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Monday, May 2, 2016
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
National Border Patrol Council Endorses Trump for President
30 Mar 2016
In an official statement first obtained by Breitbart Texas, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States. The unusually bold statement comes just days after a senior policy adviser for Trump made clear that future U.S. border security policy would be largely determined by the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol who are actual agents protecting the border and not by politically-appointed bureaucrats in the Border Patrol or its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), if Trump is elected.
The endorsement is the first-ever in a presidential primary for the NBPC. The agents’ statement makes clear that Trump’s public pledge to secure the border by turning to the actual agents in the NBPC is revolutionary and an opportunity never-before-seen and one that may never be seen again. They wrote, “Mr. Trump will take on special interest and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.”The NBPC has been the only voice for nearly 17,000 Border Patrol agents. The organization has served as the only advocacy and defense mechanism for the needs and interests of agents against overwhelming attacks from political groups and special interests opposing a secured border.
The full statement from the NBPC:
March 30, 2016
The National Border Patrol Council is
the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol
Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in
an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing
our jobs.
The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.
As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.
The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.
As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.
Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is
not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of
jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is
completely independent of special interests. We don’t need a person who
has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another
establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are
more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by
open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption
in Washington.
We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man.
Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country’s interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn’t listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country.
You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.
Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.
There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.
We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man.
Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country’s interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn’t listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country.
You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.
Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.
There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Brandon Judd
President
National Border Patrol Council
President
National Border Patrol Council
Follow Breitbart Texas’ managing director Brandon Darby on Twitter: @brandondarby
(Disclosure: Breitbart Texas sponsored the Green Line podcast for the NBPC in an effort to provide a platform for agents to inform the public about the realities on the border and what Border Patrol agents face. Director Brandon Darby received an award from the Laredo chapter of the NBPC for his work in helping to defend and bring a voice to Border Patrol agents. Breitbart News assisted in covering funeral costs for a slain Border Patrol agent previously. Darby and Breitbart senior management have directly stated and shown that helping to bring a voice to the expressed needs and interests of Border Patrol agents is a top priority–personally, individually and together through Breitbart News.)
Breitbart
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Sunday, February 7, 2016
The Classiest Debate Moment That No-One Noticed – Never Leave A Good Man Down…
Few people will talk about this, and fewer will even want to acknowledge it, but what Donald Trump did before the debate even began shows the measure of a real man’s worth.
At the beginning of the ABC debate, each of the candidates were being introduced in a specific order. The first name called to the stage was Chris Christie. The applause was loud and lingered through the time when Martha Raddatz called the second candidate Ben Carson.
Dr. Carson did not hear his name called (easy to understand why when you listen to the video) and stood in the entry-way. The moderators, with their backs to the candidates, didn’t notice his absence and called the third name on the list, Ted Cruz.
Ted walked past Dr. Carson and onto the stage. Carson remained in the awkward, and embarrassing position, ‘no-mans-land’, on-camera but out of sight of the live audience.
What happened next shows the remarkable character of Donald Trump.
The fourth name called was Donald Trump, but by then the back-stage crew and candidates were aware of Dr. Carsons’ position. Trump slowly approached, and then realized the embarrassing position of a fellow candidate hanging in the wind.
Trump showed his leadership by standing right next to his friend, and not walking onto the stage.
The other names continued to be called, and proceeded as mentioned. But not Donald Trump, he remained with his colleague thereby reducing the internal anxiety felt by Carson.
It would have been very easy for Trump to walk by Ben, just like all the other candidates did. But instead he chose to wait, and remove the embarrassment factor by infinite magnitudes.
Then, like a boss, when Dr. Carson was called to the stage, Trump waited and allowed Ben to get the audience response and appreciation. It takes a lot of courage to make split second decisions like this, and it shows a remarkable insight into the man’s character.
Watch.
People often mistake Donald Trump’s self-confidence for arrogance or even narcissism. But there is not a narcissist on the planet who would have put themselves into a position like that to assist a competing colleague.
Here’s Mr. Trump talking to an audience member several years ago, and reminding them that no-one is “less than”.
The Conservative Treehouse
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Nature Abhors a Vacuum and Trump is Filling It
Aristotle once postulated,
“Nature abhors a vacuum.” Meaning that any empty space must be filled
with something, even if that something is hot air. Donald Trump, with
his pronouncements, promises, and pomp, is filling the vacuum created by
the Republican Party.
Creating a vacuum requires two conditions. First is an active process of creating the vacuum and second is the lack of anything filling the empty space. Barack Obama created the vacuum and the GOP did nothing to fill it, or at least replace it with something of substance.
How did Obama create the vacuum? Easy. His left wing radicalism emptied the country of traditional American values and hope, leaving a vacuum of angst and despair. Two thirds of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Obamacare with its false promises and resulting chaos and costs. Open borders bringing the third world into our world, and making the dwindling American work force pay for it all through higher taxes. The Middle East in turmoil with radical jihadists inching closer and closer to America and Iran poised to get nuclear weapons. A thriving grievance industry based on identity group politics. And a culture of political correctness shutting down any criticism or legitimate discussion of these issues.
The IRS, the most powerful and feared regulatory agency in the country, is targeting political enemies of the Obama administration, specifically the Tea Party. No one has been held to account, no one fired, no one indicted or jailed.
Meaningless Congressional hearings with lots of huffing and puffing, but no accountability. No Congressional oversight. If the political parties were reversed, this would have been a much bigger scandal than Watergate. Instead it was a lot of nothing.
Where was the GOP during these past seven years? Two landslide midterm elections gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate. They campaigned promising to stop the Obama agenda, or at least offer substantive opposition to the Democrats. Instead we hear whining and excuses of why they couldn’t fulfill any of their campaign promises.
Obamacare is still in place, funding intact. The borders are open with refugee migration programs fully funded. Abhorrent Planned Parenthood, selling aborted fetal tissues for profit remains fully funded. Far left judges are readily confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate. Budget deals are passed further increasing the national debt. In turn, debt limits are raised to accommodate the budget deals. No Republican opposition, despite being the majority party in Congress.
Where is the GOP’s bully pulpit? No effort to rally the support of the millions of voters who gave the GOP large Congressional majorities. Instead the GOP happily signs on to the Obama agenda. The agenda of the left marches merrily along, as if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were still running Congress.
Along comes Donald Trump, promising to close the borders, build a wall, repeal Obamacare, stop the flood of unverifiable immigrants, with a pithy but resonating promise to “Make America Great Again.”
If Republicans were doing what they promised, offering principled opposition to the Democrat agenda, there wouldn’t be a need for a Donald Trump. Or a Ted Cruz. Instead the GOP establishment is directing far more vitriol and pushback to Trump and Cruz then they ever threw at Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. Fox News, a supposed right leaning news network, is at war with Trump. Even many good conservatives at the National Review Online are piling on The Donald.
Creating a vacuum requires two conditions. First is an active process of creating the vacuum and second is the lack of anything filling the empty space. Barack Obama created the vacuum and the GOP did nothing to fill it, or at least replace it with something of substance.
How did Obama create the vacuum? Easy. His left wing radicalism emptied the country of traditional American values and hope, leaving a vacuum of angst and despair. Two thirds of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. Obamacare with its false promises and resulting chaos and costs. Open borders bringing the third world into our world, and making the dwindling American work force pay for it all through higher taxes. The Middle East in turmoil with radical jihadists inching closer and closer to America and Iran poised to get nuclear weapons. A thriving grievance industry based on identity group politics. And a culture of political correctness shutting down any criticism or legitimate discussion of these issues.
The IRS, the most powerful and feared regulatory agency in the country, is targeting political enemies of the Obama administration, specifically the Tea Party. No one has been held to account, no one fired, no one indicted or jailed.
Meaningless Congressional hearings with lots of huffing and puffing, but no accountability. No Congressional oversight. If the political parties were reversed, this would have been a much bigger scandal than Watergate. Instead it was a lot of nothing.
Where was the GOP during these past seven years? Two landslide midterm elections gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate. They campaigned promising to stop the Obama agenda, or at least offer substantive opposition to the Democrats. Instead we hear whining and excuses of why they couldn’t fulfill any of their campaign promises.
Obamacare is still in place, funding intact. The borders are open with refugee migration programs fully funded. Abhorrent Planned Parenthood, selling aborted fetal tissues for profit remains fully funded. Far left judges are readily confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate. Budget deals are passed further increasing the national debt. In turn, debt limits are raised to accommodate the budget deals. No Republican opposition, despite being the majority party in Congress.
Where is the GOP’s bully pulpit? No effort to rally the support of the millions of voters who gave the GOP large Congressional majorities. Instead the GOP happily signs on to the Obama agenda. The agenda of the left marches merrily along, as if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were still running Congress.
Along comes Donald Trump, promising to close the borders, build a wall, repeal Obamacare, stop the flood of unverifiable immigrants, with a pithy but resonating promise to “Make America Great Again.”
If Republicans were doing what they promised, offering principled opposition to the Democrat agenda, there wouldn’t be a need for a Donald Trump. Or a Ted Cruz. Instead the GOP establishment is directing far more vitriol and pushback to Trump and Cruz then they ever threw at Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. Fox News, a supposed right leaning news network, is at war with Trump. Even many good conservatives at the National Review Online are piling on The Donald.
If
the Republicans functioned as an opposition party rather than an
enabling party, the Obama presidency would have merely nudged the
country leftward, rather than turning the country in a far left
direction. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or John Kasich would be perfectly
positioned to take over and nudge the country back to the right. The
establishments of both parties would be happy as the status quo would be
maintained. Only a small course correction would be needed, not the
total turnaround currently necessary. Much as Bill Clinton nudging the
country left after George HW Bush, followed by George W Bush nudging the
country right after the Clinton presidency.
This is the void that Donald Trump is filling. Opposition to the leftist agenda of Barack Obama and his allies in Congress, the judiciary, regulatory agencies, Hollywood, academia, and the media. It didn’t have to be Trump. Actually this revolt is bigger than Trump. He just happens to be well positioned and willing to fill this void.
Which is why his supporters don’t care what he says about migrants, or John McCain, or Megyn Kelly. Or whether he was pro choice once upon a time, or invited Bill and Hillary Clinton to his wedding.
It’s about the leftist agenda driving full speed ahead, fundamentally transforming America into a country most Americans don’t recognize or want. The GOP was elected in two landslides to stop or slow the damage and the GOP did nothing. That’s the void that Donald Trump is filling. If the GOP wonders why Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are leading in the polls, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based retina surgeon, radio personality, and writer. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
This is the void that Donald Trump is filling. Opposition to the leftist agenda of Barack Obama and his allies in Congress, the judiciary, regulatory agencies, Hollywood, academia, and the media. It didn’t have to be Trump. Actually this revolt is bigger than Trump. He just happens to be well positioned and willing to fill this void.
Which is why his supporters don’t care what he says about migrants, or John McCain, or Megyn Kelly. Or whether he was pro choice once upon a time, or invited Bill and Hillary Clinton to his wedding.
It’s about the leftist agenda driving full speed ahead, fundamentally transforming America into a country most Americans don’t recognize or want. The GOP was elected in two landslides to stop or slow the damage and the GOP did nothing. That’s the void that Donald Trump is filling. If the GOP wonders why Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are leading in the polls, all they have to do is look in the mirror.
Brian C Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based retina surgeon, radio personality, and writer. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.
American Thinker
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Friday, January 22, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Monday, January 4, 2016
America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem
By Daniel Greenfield
America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.
Chicago is America's mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.
2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they're all run by the party of gun control which somehow can't seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.
The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country's murder capital.
These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.
Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.
But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.
Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.
New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.
Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That's why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It's why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.
Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.
If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.
Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.
But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.
There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.
America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.
As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, "The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It's a fact.”
America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.
Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.
America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.
Sultan Knish
America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.
Chicago is America's mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.
2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they're all run by the party of gun control which somehow can't seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.
The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country's murder capital.
These cities are the heartland of America’s real gun culture. It isn’t the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it’s Obama’s own voting base.
Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago’s murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago’s murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.
But Chicago isn’t even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.
Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent.
New Orleans lags behind with a 39.6 murder rate. Louisiana went red for Romney 58 to 40, but Orleans Parish went blue for Obama 80 to 17. Obama won both St. Louis and Baltimore by comfortable margins. He won Detroit’s Wayne County 73 to 26.
Homicide rates like these show that something is broken, but it isn’t broken among Republican voters rushing to stock up on rifles every time Obama begins threatening their right to buy them; it’s broken among Obama’s base.
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.
Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?
A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.
Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That's why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It's why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.
America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.
National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.
Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.
If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.
Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.
But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.
There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.
America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.
As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, "The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It's a fact.”
America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.
Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.
America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.
Sultan Knish
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
