Hollywood, Morons? Why Even Ask?

As is my custom I refused to watch the Oscars last night and instead cleaned my Remington 870 Tactical Express and had a wrestling match with my dogs. I lost, by the way.

This morning, of course, the news was full of the Warren Beatty/Price-Waterhouse snafu that had the dopey actor announcing the wrong winner for "Best Picture." Priceless. Kinda sorry I didn't see that. But then why would a genuine progressive be upset? Doesn't everybody deserve a trophy? Everybody should be awarded for being the "BEST"! Oscars for everybody and their illegal alien maids!

And, yes, that segues into the main topic of this little post. Immigration and Hollywood. This morning, I listened to a couple of speeches given by idiots last night. One, in the form of a statement from some forgettable Iranian director who won an award for best best foreign language film, berated Trump's inhumane immigration policy. In protest, the Iranian refused to come to the US to pick up his award. The Republic trembled! His little rant, of course, got a standing ovation from the gathered host of dopes.

It seems odd to me that nobody asked whether maybe they shouldn't be more upset by the fact that a good chunk of those in the audience would be hanging by the neck from construction cranes if they were in Iran. Maybe there should have been a call to boycott Iranian films in the name of hanged gays and stoned-to-death rape victims? But, in case you were wondering, there wasn't.

The first Muslim (evah!) to win an Oscar for actor didn't take the opportunity, in case you were wondering, to call upon his fellow Muslims to stop treating women like cattle and stop throwing gays off of high buildings. Nobody seemed upset. It's Islam, so it's OK.

Some Mexican presenter took his turn at the microphone to berate our immigration policy and demand respect for immigrants and, of course, no wall. He didn't take the opportunity, in case you were wondering, to blast the Mexican government for how it treats Central American migrants, and for its own highly restrictive immigration laws and policies.

The call for no walls, of course, is even more humorous when one sees that those calling for an end to walls live behind walls of stone and steel, and protected by rings of armed men. No calls rang out for  "Clooney tear down your wall in Lake Como! Let in the Somali refugees!" Nah, didn't happen . . .

I heard of no celebrity calling for the police outside the Kodak Theater to stand down and allow the masses in. Fill the seats with the homeless and undocumented! Nah . . . maybe, however,  just maybe the illegal aliens and the others working for minimum wage or less in the kitchens and rest rooms at the event, and those sweeping up the mess afterwards, will be deeply touched by the concern shown for them by the Hollywood glitterati.

It goes on and on and on . . . .

Sorry for the light blogging. Took a dog break and spent a lot of time with my dogs and my son's new acquisition, Sofia. The Diplodogs are only gradually getting used to the presence of the Diplosondog. Some growls, some shoving, some barking . . . but I think they will eventually accept Sofia into the world.

It's been hard to get enthused about blogging. I have been going to the gym in my futile attempt to become 35 again. This gym seems to run only CNN on its many screens. I don't know if they get paid for it, but here you have it. I just cannot listen to that "news" service and plug in my headphones and listen to Chuck Berry, Tom Petty, and the Stones. That does not let me escape CNN. They run closed captions and, of course, I find myself reading them. It is bash Trump all the time. It really has become obsessive and dhows the truth of what I have written before that there is an element of mental disturbance in the mind of the progressive.

It is not just CNN. I turned on the TV at home the other night and there was pretty boy George Clooney getting some sort of award in France, and going on about these "times of insanity." To think that some here in California seem serious about having Clooney run for the Senate is insane, well, except this is California so the bar is pretty high. Clooney is, I admit, the perfect representative for today's progressives. Fabulously wealthy from playing pretend, glib, married to a foreigner who has a pronounced distaste for the USA and who holds a fake job as a "human rights lawyer," spends most of his time in his walled mansions in England and Italy, and making movies wherever he can get the tax subsidies. Perfect prog.

I also watched as several GOP Congressional town halls got invaded by progressive plants shouting about saving Obamacare, Trump's tax returns, and investigating Russia. Russia! Yes, the progs are so concerned about America's security! Well, except when the threat comes from Mexico or Islam. But Russia and CO2, that must be investigated!

I will try to write something a bit more more, in the coming days, but . . . .

Madness and Chaos: The Left in the Time of Trump

In the late 1950s, the now sadly departed great Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe wrote his masterpiece, Things Fall Apart. I remember reading his novel in high school, and being struck by the story it tells. It's been years since I read the book, and don't remember all the details of how the main character watches helplessly as his traditional yam-based Ibo way of life loses the battle to the encroaching white man's culture. As he realizes he has no place in the new culture that has emerged, he commits suicide.

The man, Donald Trump, who ran the most unorthodox campaign since, since, well, you fill in the date, and who was given less chance to win than the Cubs, well, he won. The losers are not happy. The sort of attack they have launched on Trump, his administration, and supporters might seem unprecedented, although it might be comparable to how the Democrats in the South reacted to Republican-led Reconstruction after the Civil War, except it doesn't make anywhere as much sense.

At the risk of some exaggeration--but this is a blog, and that's what we do--perhaps we should see Trump as bringer of the new culture to the traditional culture of the traditional Washington elites and their enablers in the universities, Hollywood, and corporate medialandia. There is no doubt that a huge socio-cultural clash is underway. Turn on your TV; you see it. Listen to the debates of people around you; you hear it.

Trump has upended the traditional political culture in a way not seen since, well, I don't know since when; you fill in the date. The left are akin to some sort of American Ibo who see their traditional government-based culture threatened, and much of their behavior seems to indicate they, too, are preparing to commit suicide.

After watching some anti-Trump demonstration on TV, a friend of my son's asked these intelligent questions of me the other day, "What has Trump done? Why is he accused of being racist? Why do they hate him so much?" Best as I can tell, I think they hate the idea of Trump. He wasn't supposed to be president. He is not, I guess, one with the body. He has, in short, exposed them as, no other word for it, crazy. Yes, crazy.

So they hate Trump but what are these protestors and their media enablers for?

As far as I can tell they are for children but also for killing unborn ones with no restriction, no apology, and no need for a fee. They are for LBGT and women's "rights," but ally themselves with Muslims who practice FGM, oppose abortion, treat women like cattle, promote and engage in honor killings, and advocate death for LBGT people. They are for women's rights, but want men who think they are women to use women's washrooms. They are for free speech, but shut down anybody who disagrees with them, and, of course, they ally themselves with Muslims who oppose freedom of speech and thought as part of their core dogma. They are against racism but try to stir up old racial animosities and conflicts that had long been resolved, buried, and forgotten. They are for poor working people, but oppose the tax and the regulatory structures that create jobs. They are for poor working people but favor unrestricted immigration that drives down wages, crowds out jobs, and absorbs the funds of public welfare schemes. They want free education for all, but oppose letting poor and middle class people have the right to choose their schools, unlike the rich people who do. They shout "Love Trumps Hate!" as they bash opponents with bricks and poles. They have spent decades denouncing the military, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI as oppressors of the people, but now want those agencies to sabotage an elected president. The wealthy ones denounce gun ownership and walls but live behind protective shields of men with guns and walls around their exclusive properties. Hollywood stars who made millions living in the land of make-believe denounce non-existent Trumpian "brownshirts" and bravely proclaim their resistance! They are for the environment and prove it by flying to environmental rallies in their private jets. They, well . . . you can go on with this sad litany.

For these leftists, facts don't matter. Logic is absent, abhorred, and shouted down. The emotion is the thing. The posturing is the thing. The slogan is the thing.

I think when all is said and done we have to conclude that there is a large element of mental disturbance.

They are crazy.

They are psychotic.

As do many psychotic movements they can't decide whether their movement is about killing us or committing spectacular suicide. I know what I am rooting for . . .

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote

I have never seen such a pile on as the one we are seeing with Trump. The press, the leftoid idiots on the street and in Hollywood are joined, of course, and most troubling, by at least some of our intel agencies which have allowed themselves pressed into the service of one political party. 

We could be seeing nothing less than an attempted coup by the bureaucratic mandarins and their minions in our federal government against an incoming president. 

It is not just political appointees at the top of key agencies who are involved. Let us not forget that, in their long march, the progressives have targeted such key institutions as the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland, and State for special attention. These agencies are now increasingly staffed from bottom to top by products of our progressive universities and are becoming full-time believers in the progressive vision of the world. In addition they see, thanks to Hillary Clinton, that mishandling classified information brings no penalty. They apparently have no reluctance to join efforts to subvert our electoral system.

If anything, those seemingly alarmist words seem now more accurate and relevant than when written over a month ago.

We all have heard the news. National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has been forced out of his position after a concerted media and Democratic Party campaign, a campaign abetted by anti-Trump bureaucrats. "Journalists" relying on half-stories, innuendo, and rank speculation "leaked" by intel agencies drove the assault on Flynn, and, of course, on Trump.  The whole episode was a sorry exhibition of how our democracy is now threatened by those who see themselves as the rightful and permanent ruling class in DC.

The Dems and their allies were abuzz with the words "Logan Act." You can follow the link to Wikipedia and, as is rare on Wikipedia, read a pretty good summary of this nearly 220 year-old act and its legal and political history.

Until the Flynn episode, I had not heard "Logan Act" since I left the Foreign Service. When I was at State, we would occasionally entertain ourselves noting persons who should be prosecuted under that ancient legislation. We came up with culprits such as: John Kerry for his role at the Vietnam peace conference in Paris; Ramsey Clark for his involvement in Iraq and Yugoslavia; Louis Farrakhan for Libya; Jesse Jackson for Syria, etc. Any number of NGOs and Congressional staffers could also in theory be charged under the Logan Act's text which reads, in part,

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

We, however, all recognized that the Act would likely be found in violation of the First Amendment.

Well, the MSM and the Dems, joined by Senators McCain and Graham, went gunning for Flynn, and tried to make him part of the increasingly stale story of how the Russians "hacked" the US elections to throw them to Trump. Flynn was accused of talking to the Russian Ambassador some time in December, and in the course of that conversation mentioning US sanctions on Russia. In the process of attacking Flynn, the media produced vague, poorly sourced, stories allegedly from US intelligence sources implying that Flynn had formed part of a persistent link up between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that Flynn, who was still technically a private person, had no business talking to the Russian Ambassador about anything, but especially nothing about sanctions. Please. Get real. If Flynn committed an error it was trying to hit the ground running, and get a jump on his duties some three or four weeks before he became the National Security Advisor. Perhaps he outdrove his headlights. Let that serve as a warning to President Trump about dealing with the entrenched bureaucracy--it is not your friend and it is willing to damage the national security of the United States.

I would love to see a prosecution effort on Flynn. Right.

In the attack on Flynn, however, the Dems and their intel allies revealed that we had tapped the Russian Ambassador's phone line. Now, I am sure that the Russians always had assumed this, and that Flynn, former head of the DIA, suspected such a possibility, but these are not things talked about openly, and doing so only gave Putin talking points against us.

Let's review the gist of the case against Flynn and the Trump White House. As far as I can tell it consists of the following three hard and irrefutable facts,

1) Uhm;
2) Err; and
3) Ah.

That pretty well sums it up.

I hope and trust that AG Sessions will go after those in the intel agencies and, I suspect, among the Congressional staffers with access to intel, and prosecute them. Even more important, however, we need to have less classification of materials and far fewer people with access to the genuinely classified stuff.

The New Mexican War

Much has been written, including in this blog, of the threat to America posed by radical Islamic terrorism. Not so much has been written about another threat, perhaps an even greater one. I refer to the threat posed by Mexico to the United States; it is multi-faceted and persistent, and forms a long established core component of Mexico's foreign policy.

Before I get into the subject let me engage in the usual disclaimer required in our snowflake culture. I have been in Mexico many times both on vacation and for work as a US diplomat. I know Mexico well, am fascinated by its history, and consider Mexico City one of the great cities in the world. If you want outstanding restaurants and, above all, world class museums and other cultural institutions, go to Mexico City.

That said, I also have long considered Mexico a major threat to America. I have dealt with Mexican diplomats at the UN, the OAS, and in Central and South America. They are first rate. They are patriotic, well-trained, dedicated, and hard working. They, almost to a man and a woman, are also possessed with a deep, deep animus towards the United States. At the UN and the OAS, for example, Mexico, in my experience, played the role of opponent to whatever we sought to do. They not only consistently voted against us, they collaborated with our opponents on resolutions and projects antithetical to our interests, and, for example, refused to oppose Cuban and Venezuelan human rights violations. They rarely passed on an opportunity to stick it in our eye.

Mexico had a major role in fostering guerrilla groups in Central America during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, backing off only when it became a hindrance to the NAFTA deal with the United States, and when some of the groups began operating in Mexico. Mexico is feared and resented throughout Central America as a bully and for its mistreatment of Central American migrants. The horror stories these migrants tell of their passage through Mexico are hair-raising and heartbreaking.

I wrote during the recent hysteria over Russian hacking and interference in our  2016 elections that,

Is there foreign interference in our elections? You bet. 

The biggest offender? Not Russia, but Mexico. Mexican officials publicly called on Mexicans in the US to oppose Trump; Mexico's over fifty--yes, fifty--consulates in the US (here) are hot beds of political activity and activism. Millions of illegal and legal aliens largely from Mexico and Central America vote, yes vote. We need to have an in-depth investigation into Mexico's interference in our elections, an interference that goes well beyond revealing embarrassing DNC texts. 

There. That's an investigation the GOP should endorse, and the new SecState should take up the issue of Mexican interference in our elections.

That interference in our politics has not ceased since the elections. It, in fact, has increased. Some years ago, I mentioned to a senior colleague in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at State, my concern over the openly political activity engaged in by Mexico's consulates and diplomatic personnel in the U.S. She acknowledged it was a problem but not one anybody wanted to take up.  Well, it is now at a stage when it must be taken up. If the Trump administration is serious about protecting our borders and sovereignty the time has come for tough action on Mexico.

We see this story in the Wall Street Journal (and here) in which Mexican officials, including their diplomats in the US, are seeking to "jam" US courts with contested deportations. The Mexican government has set aside millions of dollars to help illegal Mexican migrants in the US fight efforts to deport them. In addition, Mexico, apparently, is contemplating the grotesque tactic of demanding that we PROVE that deportees are Mexican citizens before Mexico will accept them. In other words, we have to provide the documentation that Mexico failed to provide its own citizens. Mexican officials are holding meetings in Arizona with US politicians warning them about the harm to US-Mexico relations if illegal aliens are deported or prevented from coming to the US. Mexican officials are openly encouraging activists to block deportations. I find this nothing short of outrageous, but, nevertheless, a clear manifestation of the hostility that has long existed in Mexican officialdom for the USA.

We must not only defend our border but, in my view, it is well past the time for the US to begin shutting down most of these Mexican consulates. There is no justification for Mexico to have over fifty consulates in the US. Had I the power, we would give Mexico one week to close 25-30 consulates. In addition, we would work out a plan to close additional consulates depending on how Mexico behaves. If Mexico, in fact, refuses to take back deportees, then we would need to take additional actions such as shutting down our visa issuance in Mexico, kicking out their ambassador from Washington, closing down the border crossing for periods of time, and even halting remittances to Mexico--just to let Mexico feel the pain. As part, of course, of any comprehensive reform of our immigration laws, no federal money should go to supporting illegal aliens in the US.

The Southwest USA does not "belong" to Mexico. Mexico, please note, held California for about 25 years; they had Texas for even less time. Spain held the area for a couple hundred years, and we've had it for some 170 years. So enough with that argument. It is tiresome.

The USA has the right to defend its sovereignty and borders. Mexicans have no right of access to the US any more than anybody else does.

Audi: Progressive Test Crash Dummy?

This little piece deals with a subject well outside my usual ken, but I just couldn't resist commenting on a stunning piece either of corporate stupidity or craven capitulation, or both. I refer, of course, to the Audi commercial run during the LI Super Bowl. You can view it here if you missed it. Try not to vomit.

From what I am reading, Audi, along with some of the usual prog echo chamber, is praising itself on the brilliance of this advert, and its message of "female empowerment" and "equal pay for equal work."All very interesting from a company with no females among its key chief executives, and which brags about its sales in the Arab world.

The commercial is narrated by a clearly Beta male worrying about what he will tell his skilled and talented daughter about her "worth." He gravely intones his worry that he will have to tell her that her grandma is worth less than her grandpa, that her mom is worth less than her dad. All this, of course, while his daughter demonstrates amazing driving skills in a soap box derby race, putting mean-looking fat boys to shame. Then as the proud dad and, of course, his victorious daughter walk to their mega-dollar Audi luxury car, he says maybe he will tell her something else . . . no sign of a mom because I guess she's off protecting the human rights of Palestinians or helping Audi cheat on smog tests.

In case, just in case, you didn't get the point about how pro-womyn Audi has become, the ad ends with a few lines about Audi's commitment to equal pay for equal work, and "Progress is for Everyone." Get the word, "progress." Sledgehammer.

There is so much deplorable and idiotic about this ad, that I can't get into all of it. First, of course, equal pay for equal work has long been the law of the land in the USA--maybe not in Germany or in Saudi Arabia or some other major markets, but here, yes. Second, I have had enough male bashing. I am tired of this constant effort to make men out as villains, while women, if given the chance, are just as bad ass as men. Enough already. It seems every TV show and movie has the same theme; it has penetrated into commercials, and now even commercials run during the Super Bowl--might we wonder how many "bad ass" women could play in a Super Bowl?

My suggestion for the "progressive" dolts at Audi is for them to run their silly ad in Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive, or some other bastion of Shariah law and see how it plays. Perhaps, even better, even more indicative of the strong "progressive" bent of this firm, which used slave labor during WWII, Audi should refuse to sell cars in the Muslim world until that world lives up to Audi's commitment to women--as long as they don't hold key positions on Audi's board of directors, that is . . . no sense getting too radical.

"Diversity is Our Strength"

"Diversity is Our Strength" seems something that the pig rulers in Orwell's Animal Farm would have posted with their original seven commandments. This phrase gets repeated regularly with such conviction and energy by the proper thinkers and politicos in North America, Western Europe, and Oceania that one hesitates to ask "Why? Why is it our strength?" One also must ask, "Why isn't diversity considered a strength in places other than those mentioned?" First, however, one must ask something else, "What is meant by diversity?"

A common dictionary definition of "diversity" reads, "The state of being diverse; variety; a range of different things." Sure. OK. One can accept that a diversity of food products is good; as is a diversity of job opportunities; of vacation options; of car and gun manufacturers, etc. These are all good things, and in some cases, as in nutrition, prove "strengthening," but, is that how "diversity" is used in daily socio-politico-economic-academic-media discourse? Ah, let us remember that as Orwell also noted in a 1946 essay, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." Let's see what's in front of our collective nose.

Almost four years ago, I wrote about how progressives,

Appropriate certain words, redefine them, and then use them to shape the ideological battlefield. The classic example of that, of course, is "bolshevik" and "menshevik." The Bolsheviks were, in fact, the Mensheviks and vice-versa. The word "bolshevik," derived from the word meaning "majority," was appropriated by the radicals who were in reality the minority of the old Social Democratic party. The minority labeled the majority the minority and got away with it. Clever. There are many other examples of this in history such as the insistence on calling nazis and fascists right-wing when they are clearly left-wing products,

 and, subsequently noted that,

Words have meaning, and the left is very good at ever so subtly altering the meaning of words so that over time those words no longer mean what they meant. Words, of course, are the bullets of intellectual debate. If you allow your opponent to select your ammo for you, well, let's just say you are at a disadvantage.

"Diversity" must now join that legion of words appropriated and deformed almost beyond recognition by our progressive overlords. It joins "gay," "liberal," "male," "female," "fascist," "racist" and many more words that now form the core of modern progressivism's narrative. All perfectly good words that now have become unrecognizable and put into the service of the progressive "vision." When, for example, a college dean calls for more diversity in the institution, he or she is not calling for more conservatives and libertarians on staff to balance the school's overwhelmingly progressive bent. Same with corporations and government; it is a call for more "ethnic" and "gender" diversity; it is a call to label anybody who questions that as a "racist," a catch-all term of opprobrium and dismissal; it is increasingly a call for a form of "diversity" that seeks to destroy Western Civilization. It is a call for uniformity of thought.

We see in the ongoing debate over immigration in the West that the proper thinkers want ever more "diversity." As I noted several years ago, we saw,

a leftist attempt to alter radically the nature of British society by encouraging immigration from poor countries and have those immigrants become dependent on and vote for Labour . . .  not unlike what happened in the US with the horrid 1965 immigration law which significantly changed the source of our immigration away from Europe to the third world, put the emphasis on "family reunification," and created a whole new class of people dependent on the government and the Democratic party urban machine. The effect, however, has proven more dramatic in Britain for a number of reasons. The US, of course, is much larger and since its creation has been an immigrant-based country; while our founding political and ethical traditions come largely from England, we are used to a relatively high degree of racial, ethnic, and religious diversity. That was not the case in the UK or in the rest of Europe where nationalities were akin to racial groupings, or at the very least well defined tribes. Those European countries, consequently, were much less adept at incorporating immigrants into the life of the nation than the more heterogenous less densely populated USA. Massive immigration to Europe from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean has proven more jarring and disruptive than in the US. With, however, the rise of leftist multiculturalism in the US, and the extension of a vast social welfare state, our once vaunted ability to "melt" immigrants and recast them as Americans has suffered. We have begun increasingly to resemble the European nations as they struggle to retain their tribal identity.

We have the wise ones asserting that people all over the world have some right to immigrate to the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, and Australia. That wherever and whenever the cry of "Refugee!" or "Immigrant!" goes out, the West must respond by opening our wallets and our doors. We have to allow millions of persons to violate our national sovereignty and laws, lay claim to a vast array of taxpayer provided benefits, and, above all, demand fundamental changes in our culture and institutions. We apparently no longer have the right to defend our borders and establish immigration laws and policies that benefit our people.

"Diversity is Our Strength." Really? Are Japan and China weak and miserable because they are not diverse? The historical record would beg to differ. "Homogeneity is Their Strength"?

That aside, I have noted before (here and here, for example) that many if not most of the so-called Syrian refugees, the current progressive plat d'jour, are neither Syrian nor refugees. They are not particularly persecuted any more than anybody else unfortunate enough to live in a Muslim majority country. Let us not forget that the bulk of Islam's victims consists of Muslims, the same ones who come to our countries to instill the same sort of barbaric Islamic regime and practices they supposedly "flee." I tire of comparisons of these "refugees" with Anne Frank and the millions of other Jews who fell to the Nazis. Prior to and during WWII, we did not take in Nazi "refugees." We did not take in the people vowing to destroy us. The US also didn't take many Jewish refugees either because, if you remember, the Democrats held power, and the Democratic party is the historic repository of racism and anti-Semitism in American politics. The Nazis of today are the Muslims pouring into Europe. The Anne Franks of today are the Christian, Baha'i, and Yazidi minorities living in the hell created by Islam. That same Islam, by the way, long ago eliminated the Jews from the Muslim world. I also would note that Islam drove the Hindus, the Buddhists, and the Sikhs out of Pakistan, but we have no UN programs or refugee camps for them. We have no Hollywood celebrity calling for justice for them.

The progressives seek to destroy our culture, and replace it with . . . what exactly? The progs can't or won't say, but we can certainly get a glimpse of what's to come if they succeed. Has "diversity" of the progressive kind made Europe a stronger and a better place to live? I think that hundreds of victims of Islam in Paris, Nice, Brussels, London, etc., might have an interesting answer to that. I note that thanks to the strength derived from diversity, Swedish police now advise Swedish women not to go out alone after dark and to dress modestly so as not offend the "refugees" who might just have to rape and murder these women for cultural reasons. If "diversity" is so good, why not encourage it in the Muslim world? Let's build churches in Mecca! How about that? Why not more diversity in Nigeria? Perhaps Mexico should diversify its demographics by taking in hundreds of thousands of "refugees" from the Middle East and Africa, and not funneling them northward? The same progs who worry about cultural contamination by missionaries of an isolated tribe in the Amazonian forest have no problem turning vast swathes of our cities into "no go" zones ruled by the practitioners of Sharia and the other blessings of the Religion of Peace.

Opposition to the progressive concept of "diversity" has nothing to do with race. I, for one, find race a boring concept, and one that tells you little useful about any person. Melanin levels have no bearing on the worth of an individual. A typical Caribbean person has much more in common with a typical North American person, regardless of color, than does a white Iranian or Syrian. The issue is culture. The overwhelming majority of the immigrants to the US, for example, came from "diverse" backgrounds but within a cultural range framed by Judeo-Christian concepts. Islamic culture is not within that range, and, unlike Buddhism or Hinduism, is openly hostile to our culture and its values. We have the right to defend ourselves from that sort of "diversity," PM Trudeau and Hollywood not withstanding.

Hunting Unicorns and Dragons

OK, before I get to today's sermon, I offer apologies for the sporadic blogging this week. Life got in the way. Well, actually, a good thing got in the way. This week the Diplomad extended household added a new denizen. Her name is Sofia. She will be living with my son, is a bit over eight weeks old, and weighs in at just under 13 lbs. Here she is. Check out those eyes!

The other two furry members of the family had their own "eye reaction" to the introduction of blue-eyed Sofia. This might not go well . . .

Let's now move on from the greatest creation on the planet, dogs, to other creations, other sorts of animals. I refer, of course, to Unicorns and Dragons. 

I have written before about how hard it is to keep up with the frenetic activity coming out of the Trump White House. The press, too, can't keep up so they don't bother. They just make things up. They create Unicorns and Dragons; they should write for "Game of Thrones." 

We see nonsense about Trump threatening to invade Mexico. We read, above all, that he has banned Muslims and refugees from the United States. This, of course, has produced no end of wailing and lamentations from the moneyed Hollywood celebrities who don't live anywhere near where the "refugees" would live, telling us how keeping out a few "refugees" is not "my America." Yeah, yeah, blow hards . .  . We also see some 900 of my old colleagues at State signing some sort of "Dissent Channel" message, which they apparently publicized, bemoaning the Trump travel restrictions. .  . always thought the Department was overstaffed; you easily could chop 900 jobs from the place and it would run better.  

One more time. 

There is no Muslim ban. 

The President has put a temporary suspension on people from seven countries, the same seven previously identified by the Obama administration. Six of those seven are non-functioning countries. The seventh is Iran, the world's foremost exporter of terror and on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. The world's biggest Muslim countries are not affected at all; people from Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, etc., will still get their visas. Muslim citizens of Europe, Australia, India, etc., will get visas. Over 90% of the Muslim world is not affected. 

I wish to point out that Kuwait has a ban on five Muslim countries, and, in fact, had a ban in place on Syria well before we did. 

If anything, Trump's order is too limited in scope and duration. 

The only caliber that is effective at killing Progressive Unicorns and Dragons is the truth.