Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Sunday, September 27, 2015

"Refugee" Disaster: President Obama, You Built This; You Own This.

Sorry for the long delay in posting. Life and other frivolous matters keep getting in the way of serious blogging.

I have been playing around with my dogs and my old cars--and even added another one to the collection (1973 Mustang Mach 1) which is causing some grief. The previous owner, it turns out, was a very clever, perhaps a bit too clever, shade tree mechanic. I am finding lots of "non-standard" parts, home-made, in fact. It seems, for example, he rebuilt the Hurst shifter in his backyard with whatever spare bolts and pieces of metal he had laying about. The transmission itself also shows signs of excessive "cleverness," as does the four barrel carburetor and the clutch. The front suspension is shot, and the . . . well, never mind, I will cut to the chase, the Diplowife is not happy.

So, naturally, the unhappiness resulting from an ill-thought-out purchase leads to thinking about the ravages of Progressivism we see on our TV and computer screens daily. I was struck yesterday by reports out of Germany (here and here, for example) that authorities seek to downplay the growing violent criminality introduced into German communities by the recent influx of "Syrian refugees," who, of course, are neither Syrian nor refugees.

Wow! Who woulda thunk problems would result from putting into the heart of Europe hundreds-of-thousands of young men who follow a creed, i.e., Islam, that advocates hate, conquest, enslavement, and death for non-believers, and considers women less worthy than goats? The response of German authorities to Muslim violence? Warn German women not to provoke their new neighbors by going about with too much skin exposed.

As I noted well over two years ago, the fantasies of modern Liberals/Progressives can and will get you killed,
The examples are endless. From the liberal refusal to allow us to become energy independent, the liberal refusal to see what Islam does everywhere it takes root, and the liberals' seemingly endless assault on the family, everywhere we look we see the death and destruction that modern liberalism brings to our shores and promotes overseas.
To speak out on this is to risk being labeled a racist and hate-monger. To fail to speak out, however, means being complicit to some of the greatest crimes on the planet: the crimes of the liberals.
Some time back, I also wrote that we can now see what a post-USA, post-Western world looks like. The ancient "Muslim Murder Machine," after some 1400 years, has gotten a new lease on life as a result of weakness and self-defeat in the West. The Muslim Murder Machine is on the march, and marching into the West, what's left of it. While we argue about how many "refugees" we should take, whether and how to vet them, and the need to show compassion and tolerance, the Muslim world laughs at us and willingly assists in our suicide.

As I also wrote over three years ago (here), "we are not at war, just under attack." This so-called "refugee crisis" is merely another and very clever manifestation of Islam's ceaseless war against the West.

As though all this were not bad enough, another Diplomad prediction is coming true (see also here and here). President Obama's bizarre handling of the original Syrian crisis--remember "red lines" and poison gas?--has left a huge opening for Russia to reassert itself. Putin's Russia, a country many times weaker than the USA, has become the "go-to" power in the Middle East. As predicted, Russia has moved to save its Assad ally, AND--Oh, the cleverness!--to wage war against ISIS in the name of protecting Christianity! Yes, Russia, Shia Iran's greatest ally, can portray itself as defender of Christendom. Even Israel's pro-USA, tough-as-nails PM makes the now obligatory pilgrimage to Moscow to call on Czar Vlad. Israel cannot rely on the pajama boys running Washington, and must make accommodations with the growing presence and power of Russia.

Here's another Diplomad prediction. Eastern Europe will turn to the protection of Russia. If this Muslim invasion continues, and especially if it continues to be encouraged by the West, Russia will, again, become the Great Protector of the Slavs.

For my faithful seven or eight readers, of course, none of my predictions is earthshaking. All of you could and probably did make the same ones. Anybody with any sense could see this stuff coming. Obama, Clinton, and Kerry (with notable assists from Merkel and Cameron) built and own this.

The disasters now sweeping our world were not inevitable, and all were quite preventable.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

Trump and Obama's Christianity

OK, OK, another distraction from writing chapter 3.

All of you have seen, heard, or read about The Great Controversy. Yes, the one wherein a pro-Clinton plant asked Trump a loaded and rambling question about Muslims being a problem in America, and Obama being a Muslim and not even an American. Watch the video and you'll see that Trump initially makes light of the question, and then gives a not totally coherent answer about how he will look into a variety of issues and come up with ways to deal with them. Crappy question, and somewhat lame answer--one which shows that Trump does not do any practicing or researching before taking the podium. He relies on a natural gift-of-gab, a considerable one, admittedly, but not one which always resonates well with our Progressive Overlords: precisely why he continues to do well in the polls--at least for now.

Now the Progs and their friends are in a frenzy because Trump did not defend Obama as a Christian and an American. Megyn Kelly on Fox compared Trump's answer unfavorably with McCain's back in 2008, when he fielded a similar question. McCain defended Obama; McCain, of course, lost the election--which, I gather, is why Progs keep citing him as the model Republicans should emulate.

I remain undecided on Trump. I don't see evidence that he has a coherent world view, and remain uncertain that he can go the distance. He, therefore, is not my first choice for GOP nominee, but I see and respect him as a very savvy politician, businessman, and entertainer. Don't listen to the Progs on Trump: he is a smart man. Trump understands our complex modern media age perhaps better than anybody else I have seen on the national stage. He knows how to deliver a message, play a crowd, and set the agenda.

Back to the issue at hand: Trump has no obligation to defend Obama on anything. Could he have provided a better answer to this Clinton provocateur? Sure, but, I repeat, he does not have to defend Obama as being Christian. Why not? None of us knows if he is or isn't Christian. I have written about this before. As a child he grew up in a leftist/Muslim household--father and step-father were Muslim--went to Muslim schools, and as an adult joined that fraudulent Rev. Wright's "church" in Chicago as a political move. Its teachings are not exactly mainstream Christian, I would note.

I am not a Christian and don't play one on the internet. I, however, do know something about religion and have spent most of my life with Christian colleagues, friends, and relatives, e.g., the Diplowife and her family. I don't see anything particularly Christian about Obama or his pronouncements. When he has spoken about Christianity it has been usually to castigate it for some "wrong", e.g., the Crusades. He has not, to my knowledge, used such condemnatory language when discussing Islam; he tends to give those who commit heinous crimes in the name of Islam a pass, denying that they are "true" Muslims. He's not said a word about or moved a muscle to stop the horrendous attacks on Christians in many Muslim countries--and seems quite content to release billions of dollars to the fanatically Muslim Iranian regime and allow it to acquire a nuclear bomb. The only country in the Middle East where Christians now are safe is Israel--a country not on Obama's Christmas card list, shall we say? If he were not a Christian, would he have done anything differently?

One more thing, before it gets sucked away into the memory hole: Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign initially raised the issue of where Obama had been born and his religion. She should be asked about that. Maybe somebody could send her an email?

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Another Progressive Fairy Tale: Ahmed, The Clock Maker

Sorry. I keep getting delayed writing the concluding part to my "Defeat of the West" piece. I get distracted by examples of the Defeat of the West.

The latest example comes by way of the Wondrous Tale of the Tribulations of Poor Innocent Ahmed, Victimized Muslim Child of Color and Intrepid Inventor. I won't go through all the details; there're hundreds, if not thousands of stories out there. Let's just do a brief summary.

The Progressive version: Poor little 13-year-old Ahmed Mohammed likes to "invent" things. He is one of those nerdy kids who goes on to create Apple computers, one of those kids who makes America great. Well, the lad "invented" a clock; he "innocently" put it in a case, and took it to impress his teachers at school. These teachers, of course, work in Texas--Progressive dog whistle fog horn for racism--so, of course, they called the cops to say the Muslim kid had brought a bomb to school. The cops, Texas cops (Racism Trigger Warning!) were mean, stupid brutes who terrorized the poor child with brutal questions. Hashtag campaign on. Lawsuit to follow.

OK. Got the essence of the Progressive narrative? Naturally, the so-called President of the United States got into the act, inviting the aggrieved boy to the White House, to where, I assume, he will fly on a plane and enter the White House without having anybody inspect his device. Right? Facebook's Zuckerberg jumped in, as well, praising the kid, and offering him an internship; the idiots at MIT, once the world's foremost STEM school, had to prove that they're also with it, lauded his "invention," and invited Ahmed to MIT. Again, can we assume he will to fly to Facebook HQs or MIT without having his device inspected or maybe not even allowed on board a plane?

All this, of course, is yet another Progressive scam, another Progressive fairy tale right up there with prior ones such as Duke LaCrosse rapists/racists, Trayvon Martin and his Skittles, "Hands up! Don't Shoot!", UVA frat rapes, and "refugees" from Central America and Syria.

I've seen many home-made bombs and suicide vests in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, and Indonesia. Anybody looking at Little Ahmed's "invention" on first glance, and especially somebody who hasn't dealt with bombs, real or hoax, would have an understandable concern. His "clock" looks like almost every bomb portrayed in movies and TV shows:  shiny case, timer, wires running to a circuit board, dangling electrical plug, 9 volt battery back-up connection, blinking lights, buzzing. Whatever you do, Lieutenant, do not cut the red cable! On closer examination--and you can find pictures all over the internet--one realizes that this is a bogus gadget set up as a "hoax" bomb. Quite deliberately done, too, I might add.

Clever Little Brilliant Ahmed "invented" nothing. There I said it. He "invented" nothing.

His "cool" clock is a disassembled 1970s/1980s alarm clock (please go here and here for an excellent take-down of the "invention"). Simply put, he or his dad (we'll get back to him) took the guts out of an old alarm clock, scattered them inside a case, and off to school Little Ahmed goes with an unassigned, unsolicited project. The teachers, quite rightly, got worried and called the cops--as they are required--and reported what they thought to be a hoax bomb. They did not say a bomb; they said a hoax bomb. The police report that Little Ahmed was very "passive aggressive" and evasive in his answers--as though, perhaps, he'd been coached, hmmm?

Now the plot thickens and sickens even more. Little Ahmed's Big Daddy is no less than--drumroll!--Mohammed El Hassan Mohammed, a Sudanese immigrant who has gone back and forth to Sudan and been mixed up in Sudanese politics for some time. A well-known Muslim activist, he has been in the news before for his stunts. Oh, yes, did I mention that he also owns a computer repair shop? Hmmm? All mere coincidence? You decide.

So now we see yet another chapter in the Progressives unending war on common sense. The next time we will have a real bomb that nobody reports for fear of getting stamped as a racist, or, even worse, an ISLAMAPHOBE!!! And, of course, let us not forget that this happened in Irving, Texas, precisely the town that recently rejected Sharia courts. Mere Coincidence? Nah. Revenge!

One last thought. Imagine, if you will, it is 1943. A white kid named Friedrich Hans Müller, whose father is a well-known Nazi activist, shows up at school with a ticking, buzzing, blinking briefcase. What would have been the reaction?

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

On Syrian Refugees and Other Fantasies

Just a quick note to re-state my views on the so-called "Syrian refugee" crisis.

It's a fake, a dangerous fake.

I don't know whether to laugh or scream when I hear people who should know better argue for taking in thousands of these "refugees," after, of course, proper and thorough "vetting." That is a sham.

There is no way to vet these people. We have no idea who they are. There is no reliable data base against which one can cross-reference the stories of these "refugees." We don't even know if they are from Syria. Increasingly it appears that they are not, with boatloads now coming from Egypt. Many of these "refugees" apparently had been living in Turkey and Egypt, some for quite some time, years even, and now suddenly decided to board a boat for the EU, land of the free . . . stuff.

I previously have noted, of course, as have many others, that the "refugees" are overwhelmingly young men. Very few children and women. That has led some commentators to worry about ISIS or AQ terrorists being among these young men. That's not really the point; that's not the real threat. I would argue that even if we could develop a vetting system that would eliminate all AQ, ISIS, Hamas, etc., militants, we would still face a serious national security threat.

Even if there is not one ISIS or AQ infiltrator, I can assure you that setting up hundreds-of-thousands perhaps even millions of Muslims in the heart of Europe will irrevocably alter the culture and politics of Europe, and provide the fodder for Islamic radicalization and terrorism. We have seen it in Minnesota, for example, where the poor Somalis we settled might not not have been AQ or ISIS when they arrived, but in short order they began providing recruits for terror organizations. We see it all over Europe, even among openly economic migrants from Muslim countries: they initially arrive and perhaps are not overtly radical, but then fall into the hands of the local mosque and local gangs, and soon you have criminals and terrorists, e.g., child rape rings, the Charlie Hebdo massacre. You see it in Britain and in Australia with native-born Muslims succumbing to the call of their "religion" and its insistence on war against the infidel.

The issue is not AQ or ISIS or Hamas or Boko Haram or Hizbollah.

The issue is ISLAM, a violent, totalitarian creed that seeks the destruction of the non-Islamic world.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

9/11: From Osama to Obama, The Defeat of the West? (Part 2)

Sorry for the delay in posting part 2. I tossed two earlier versions of this post as they had become too long and tried to encapsulate too much. Let me, mostly, concentrate on how the seeds of the West's defeat were fertilized during the years since 9/11/2001. While trying to restrict the time frame, I, however, do have to note that the ground for the defeat was prepared over many years especially with the progressive take-over of the universities, the education business, in general, the law profession, ever-growing government bureaucracies, and, of course, the media, to include Hollywood. I would note, in particular, that the pernicious doctrine of "cultural relativism" did much to sap the West's will to defend itself: We have, the Wise Ones tell us, no basis for judging whether one culture is better than another.

Under the current calamity we have in the White House, the process of defeat was greatly accelerated and even celebrated. In fairness, however, we must note that even under Bush, whom I generally admired as a competent war leader, actions were taken to undermine the effectiveness of our efforts. While I think Bush--and certainly Cheney--understood the battle that commenced on 9/11 as part of the long war, the administration let itself get mau-maued by the purveyors of political correctness. One of the tragic errors made early in this latest battle was the promotion of the nonsense that we all should go about our lives as normal. Shopping, it was proclaimed, was a patriotic duty! If you don't shop the terrorists have won! This helped undermine, in my view, the seriousness of the message delivered by 9/11.

An even greater mistake, a colossal one, in fact, was the administration's line that this was not a war against Islam, because "Islam means peace," apparently a confusion generated by the word "Islam" sounding similar to Salam (Peace). The terrorists, we have been repeatedly told, are not "real" Muslims: "real" Muslims follow the Religion of Peace. Salam, however, has nothing to do with Islam, which, in fact, means "submission." I remember, for example, just days after the attack receiving a telegram from State sent to all embassies asking for suggestions on how best to drive home that we were not at war with Islam. With the smoke still rising from the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a grassy field in Pennsylvania, Secretary Powell visited Washington DC's massive Saudi-financed Islamic Center to assure Muslims that we meant them no harm--and I won't get into the effort to let the Saudis off the hook for 9/11. This would have been the loose equivalent of, say, having had Secretary Hull visit Little Tokyo in Los Angeles, December 8, 1941, to stress that we were not really at war with Japan because "real" Shintoists would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. I saw, by the way, the same behavior by the British Ambassador in Indonesia in the wake of the outrageous 7/7/2005 bus bombing in London; he fell all over himself explaining that Britons did not blame Islam for the massacre.

Once we went to war, the splendid US and allied militaries did what Western militaries know how to do better than anybody else on the planet: conduct a complex, highly technical, lethal, and effective campaign that soon had AQ and the Taliban dead, running, or hiding.

It all quickly went downhill from there.

Let me turn for a moment to Iraq. Was the take-down of Saddam justified? I thought so at the time and continue to think that Saddam was a dangerous monster who had in the past used WMD, and had sought a nuclear capability (remember Project Babylon and Gerald Bull?) Nearly ALL the intel from many intel services indicated that Saddam had not given up his nuclear ambitions. Saddam had links to AQ and was a financial enabler of Palestinian terrorism. He was a destabilizing force in the region. He had to go. His regime soon found out what it was like to get on the wrong end of the world's only true military superpower.

The Iraq invasion, despite the last-minute betrayal by Turkey, was brilliantly executed. The problems began when the progressive dominated bureaucracy--and government is a major redoubt for progressives regardless of who's in the White House--began with nation building. Once again we got into the business of exporting parliamentary democracy and, as in Afghanistan, ignored the history of the country we had just invaded. In the name of women's education and empowering networks of non-governmental organizations, etc., we began breaking things we should not have broken. If you break old institutions and practices, you better have something real strong and real fast to replace them. We didn't. We did not intend to occupy the place for decades as we did in, say, Japan. No.  We took the top off the pressure cooker, and were surprised when the thing exploded.

Then came the ultimate act of progressive madness. Will deal with that in the next episode of The Defeat of The West.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

9/11: From Osama to Obama, the Defeat of the West? (Part I)

I have written a lot about 9/11 and won't repeat all that stuff about where I was and what I was doing. You can find it in the archives if you're so inclined. The anniversary of that day, however, has rolled around again, and I can't help but reflect on all that has happened since. As the military say, bottom line up front (BLUF), I think we might have seen the defeat of the West take place in those fourteen years.

So much has happened since that horrid day in 2001. Most of us, well, some of us, at least, can't forget the thousands killed on that day by the Religion of Peace, nor the thousands more who have died in the ensuing battles of what is a 1400 year long war waged against us by the Religion of Peace.

Prior to that day, the West had grown complacent. The Cold War had ended in a whimper; the Soviets and their Evil Empire had melted like the wicked witch in Wizard of Oz. No mushroom clouds required; no duck and cover exercises needed. The West had triumphed over the Bloc. We had prominent professors telling us we had reached the End of History, and, of course, those Soviets weren't really Marxists, after all. The great international ideological battles had ended. Besides, who would attack us? Especially, who would attack the USA? Who would dare? Why? How?

Sure we saw acts of terror overseas, yes, in that mythical, dirty, and dangerous place called overseas--the place where those odd foreigners live. Sure, some embassies had been attacked, but what do embassies really do? How does that affect life here? So-called "terror" was a matter for law enforcement, UN resolutions, and the Israelis to handle. We would focus on issues of trade, drugs, climate change, people smuggling, gender equality, gay rights, and seeing movies that make fun of Serbs and other Slavs, but mostly we would party hearty. War with Islam? How Crusader of you!

Wrong. All wrong.

The days immediately after 9/11/2001 were of shock and horror. We had been attacked in our largest city and in our capital not by Russian or Chinese missiles, not by some Hollywoodian Serbian master criminals, but by a bunch of wealthy Saudi students living it up in our midst. Armed with box cutters, an Islamic death wish, and obeying orders from a rich scrofulous Saudi expat living in a dirty Afghan hut, they killed thousands of us here at home by hijacking civilian aircraft and smashing them into buildings. More dead than at Pearl Harbor. Not over there. Not in some horrid foreign place. Right here in America. And, gosh, we had treated these boys so well, too, even had Muslim prayer rooms in the airport and halal food on board . . .  they couldn't have been real Muslims, right? We must have done something wrong . . .

While the progressives and their enablers wrung their hands and looked for the causes of Muslim anger, ordinary folks--American, British, Australian, Canadian, and others around the world--went to war. I can tell you as somebody serving overseas at the time as Charge of a US Embassy, there was an electric current running through the air. The Bush people spoke loudly and clearly and laid down one of the great foreign policy lines of our time: "We appreciate your expressions of sympathy and condolences, but now you are either with us or against us." Captained by a furious United States President with blood in his eye, the Western allies moved at record speed and with overwhelmingly lethal force. At home, everybody it seemed was flying the flag; the military recruitment centers were overwhelmed with volunteers. Those were heady days to be an diplomat in the hard countries. Foreign officials listened very intently to what you said; those not particularly well-disposed to us knew that the American diplomat standing in front of them represented a President who had and would pull the trigger. Not many wanted to risk being seen as "against us." The Al Qaeda gang and their Taliban backers never knew what hit them. In weeks they were dead, or on the run.

Not long after, the reprehensible and murderous Saddam--who had sought and used WMD--joined the AQ criminals on the run. He was eventually dug out of a spider hole and sent to trial and the gallows for his many acts of brutality. Libya's transgender Queen of the Desert, too, got the message and notified us that he/she no longer had an interest in developing nukes and surrendered his/her whole program to us. In addition, his/her people helped us round up AQ goons all over the world--I know; I worked with them.

The West, and the USA, in particular, seemed to have an unassailable position of strength. Alas, that was not to last. Even at this moment of victory, the seeds of defeat had begun to germinate.

Tomorrow In a couple of days we will discuss what flowered.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

¡Hay Moros en la Costa! Fake Refugees and Real Threats

¡Hay moros en la costa! (Moors on the coast!)

That warning cry boomed out in the coastal villages of the old Spanish Levant when Moorish raiders approached by sea intent on pillage and rape. No more appropriate phrase exists to capture what is now happening in Europe.

Far from a refugee crisis, as I noted before, what we have in the stunning movement of hundreds-of-thousands of people from the MidEast and North Africa to Europe is an invasion; nothing less than an invasion, and one welcomed by its victims. We see the final convulsions of the already much wounded and battered Old Continent.

This is how death by Progressivism appears; how suicide by genocide occurs.

As we saw earlier in the USA with the fake Central American "refugee" crisis (here) Progressive media and "activists" regale us with false stories of "children" fleeing violence in their homelands for the safety of, yes, what turns out to be White Man's World--the very world wherein, according to those same Progressives, minorities and women are oppressed by  the White Patriarchy. Naturally, White Man's World has an obligation to take in the fake refugees because somehow it's all White Man's fault.

In our own "refugee" crisis we do not see the "children" go from, say, violent Honduras to nearby peaceful Nicaragua or Costa Rica. No, the "children" take a 1200 mile trek across dangerous Mexico to come to the USA, where they are welcomed by Progressive policies of free stuff. The "refugee children" of the Middle East, likewise, don't head for rich Saudi Arabia and the wealthy Gulf States all run by their brothers in Islam. No. As Muslim invaders have done for hundreds of years, they head for Christian Europe. The oil-rich Arabs, by the way, have made clear that they don't want the "refugees." As I noted before with the fake "Palestinian refugees," so it is with the fake "Syrian refugees": the Muslims make a mess, and the rest of us get to pay.

It is all a murderous sham.

The "children refugees" from the Middle east, of course, much like the "children refugees" from Central America, turn out, well, not to be children. According to the UN, they are overwhelmingly young men, nearly three-fourths--and that's data from the UN so the real number is probably closer to 90%. In the European case, the "refugees" also come bearing extremely hostile attitudes towards the very Europeans whom they demand take them in. They come armed with something that at least "our" Latin American "refugees" did not have: Islam, the world's most totalitarian, intolerant, and murderous creed. Just wait as child sex trafficking rings, rapes, murders, and acts of terror begin to spike--the Progressive media, of course, will downplay all that, try to make it invisible, ignore it or explain it away, as they do with illegal alien crime in the USA.

The soft-headed, guilt-ridden, if not openly anti-Western morons who run most of Europe seem more than willing to welcome their conquerors. We see, for example, Germans gleefully applauding and hugging the invaders. Once upon a time those leaders and followers would have been seen as Quislings and sent to the gallows, now they are preening humanitarians.

The Progressive agenda marches on.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

The Threat: Is Hungary's PM the Only One Who Understands?

I have written so much about this, that I must apologize for doing so again.

The so-called "refugee" crisis in Europe is more than alarming. It, of course, is much more than a "refugee" crisis. All across the Old Continent we are seeing massive flouting of law and order as thousands, tens-of-thousands, maybe more, of so-called refugees flood into Europe and then slosh about from one country to another looking for the best deal. The UK has become a particular target as "refugees" try to make their way to Britain's generous public benefits. Recall that in a fit of Euro madness the leadership of the UK, traditionally the sole repository of common sense and hard-eyed realism in Europe, agreed enthusiastically with the construction of the absurd Chunnel, putting thereby an end to one of the country's historic defenses, the sea. What would Drake and Nelson have to say about that?

That Chunnel has become, as one very non-PC English friend told me some years ago in a bar in Sri Lanka, "France's garbage disposal." The issue, however, goes beyond the Chunnel. The "refugees" or "migrants" arrive by the thousands every day at Heathrow and quickly claim their benefits--all in line with deranged leftist Labour's deliberate plan to change the nation's demographic composition. As almost anybody who has visited London recently can tell you, that most wonderful of cities is now not so wonderful, and has lost its Englishness.

As noted, not just the UK is under threat, but the whole continent. One of the few European voices of sanity comes from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (here, here) He has identified the issue with clarity, so, therefore and of course, he is being called right-wing, nationalist, and--wait for it--fascist. Orban has written that,
We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation. . . . We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim... That is an important question, because Europe and European culture have Christian roots . . .
Of course, the progressives are in a fit over Orban. One "expert" cited in the Washington Post, notes that Orban is a hypocrite in his concern over the Christian roots of Europe because,
It is ironic that the man who wants to save Europe's Christian identity used to have no Christian identity himself. "Once an atheist, he now upholds religion as the nation’s backbone," Hungary expert Charles Gati observed in an op-ed last year. Hungary used to belong the Soviet bloc before the fall of the Berlin Wall: Its communist regime tried to restrict all religious tendencies and to create an atheistic society. So, like many of his countrymen, Orban was educated as an atheist.
What an idiotic thing to say. What choice did young Orban have as to his education in progressive Communist Hungary? He, subsequently, has discovered perhaps that the old Commies might have been wrong?  How about dealing with the real issue, to wit, the threat to Western civilization posed by a massive influx of people holding an ideology, i.e., totalitarian Islam, that hates Western civilization? Not hard to grasp.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Yet Another Trump Post

Yes, another piece on Trump.

He continues to draw my interest; better said, I am drawn to how he has tapped into an anger, resentment, and deep concern over the state of the nation that others have either ignored, e.g., Jeb Bush, or have not been able to exploit as well, e.g., Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio. I have noted before that the sneering class of critics might compare Trump to Father Coughlin or Huey Long, but that won't slow him down. What might slow him down is that over the course of our absurdly long presidential campaign people tire of his routine, of his jokes, of his one-line rebuttals, of constantly having to defend some outlandish statement or stunt. That can get old after a time, and he could find his support drifting, and find himself pulled into a disastrous third party run. Disaster, why? Simple. It would guarantee the Dems the White House. You can say what you want about RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), but--OMG as the kids would say--look at what the Dems are proposing! Could this nation survive as a recognizable entity with four or eight more years of the Dems CIABN (Communism in All but Name)? Would not Romney or even, gulp, McCain have been better for this country and the West than the current calamity in chief?

Soon, maybe not right now, but soon, Trump has to reach out to the establishment and its policy wonks. He doesn't have to kiss their behinds or become beholden to them. He, however, in my humble opinion, needs to establish--as did Reagan--that he is a serious thinker, and that he has a vision of how the world should be and how to get there. He needs to make a couple of serious well-structured speeches laying out that vision: at least one major social-economic address, and one major foreign policy speech. How will he turn this economy around? How will he work to give the disappearing middle class and small business owner a break? How will he deal with the unprecedented growth of government in size and reach? How will he bring us back to the principles that made America a great nation? How will he deal with Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, immigration, drugs, and other transnational issues? As I said, it has to be a serious effort, it does not have to be one that the MSM or other purveyors of conventional faux-wisom will like or approve. It has to be a real effort to establish Trump as, to quote the Coen brothers, a Serious Man.

If he doesn't do that, the sniping and snearing and derision will eventually take a toll. Mark my words. And, again, I do not want to live my remaining years in a country run by and into the ground by the likes of the Three Stooges of the Apocalypse, Hillary, Joe, and Bernie--with Elizabeth Warren as Shemp.

Hey, this is free, so don't feel ripped off . . .