We are losing America. Here are some reasons and possible solutions


The present and future ownership of America, and indeed her existence, are in serious dispute. Our nation is more divided than ever in my thus far seventy-six years of life. That augurs well neither for our future as a nation nor for those of us who want our country back. Asking “Pretty please, Kind Masters, may we have our country back?” won’t help. 

Robert Frost tried to read a poem he had written for JFK’s inauguration but was unable to do so. He had difficulties due to the bright sun and his age.

It was a cold and sunny day in 1961 and the 87 year old Frost could not read his poem,” Dedication”, that he wrote in honor of this special day for he was blinded by the bright sun. He fumpered on the podium because he could not see it and did not know it well. Richard Nixon came and held his top hat to block the sun for Mr.Frost who was extremely old and having problems. Instead, he recited from memory an oft requested poem, “The Gift Outright.”

I remember listening to Mr. Frost read The Gift Outright during an appearance at Yale, where I was an undergrad, back in 1959 or 196o. He had first recited it on December 5, 1941 — just two days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He recites it in this video:

The land was ours before we were the land’s
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she will become. [Emphasis added.]

I wonder what Mr. Frost would think of America today. Is the land still ours? To whom do the sanctuary cities belong? Their lawful inhabitants or illegal immigrants? La Raza (The Race) wants us to cede parts of our land to Mexico. Who would care? How about the people who live there lawfully. What about the Islamic caliphate, long desired by adherents to the “Religion of Peace?” For practical purposes, much of Europe is now part of the Caliphate. Many Americans believe that we should follow Frau Merkel’s shining example of unlimited Islamic migration and achieve the same multicultural glory.

Are we still possessed by “our land of living”? I doubt that those who approve of sanctuary cities, unlimited illegal immigration, non-deportation of aliens unlawfully present in America and those who find Sharia law and America’s slow but accelerating Islamisation acceptable are possessed by the land. They have rejected her.

America’s history is being taken from us

Political correctness apparently requires that we forget or revise our history. In a June 14th article Walter E. Williams observed,

George Orwell said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

In the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, censorship, rewriting of history, and eliminating undesirable people became part of Soviets’ effort to ensure that the correct ideological and political spin was put on their history.

Deviation from official propaganda was punished by confinement in labor camps and execution.

Today there are efforts to rewrite history in the U.S., albeit the punishment is not so draconian as that in the Soviet Union.

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee monument removed last month. Former Memphis Mayor A.C. Wharton wanted the statue of Confederate Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, as well as the graves of Forrest and his wife, removed from the city park.

In Richmond, Virginia, there have been calls for the removal of the Monument Avenue statues of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gens. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and J.E.B. Stuart.

It’s not only Confederate statues that have come under attack. Just by having the name of a Confederate, such as J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia, brings up calls for a name change.

These history rewriters have enjoyed nearly total success in getting the Confederate flag removed from state capitol grounds and other public places.

Slavery is an undeniable fact of our history. The costly war fought to end it is also a part of the nation’s history. Neither will go away through cultural cleansing. [Emphasis added.]

Removing statues of Confederates and renaming buildings are just a small part of the true agenda of America’s leftists. [Emphasis added.]

Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and there’s a monument that bears his name—the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C. George Washington also owned slaves, and there’s a monument to him, as well—the Washington Monument in Washington.

Will the people who call for removal of statues in New Orleans and Richmond also call for the removal of the Washington, D.C., monuments honoring slaveholders Jefferson and Washington?

On May 13th of this year, the Board of Friends of Nash Farm Battlefield issued the statement excerpted below:

The Board of the Friends of Nash Farm Battlefield, Inc. is sad to announce that the museum, located on Nash Farm Battlefield, which was funded and maintained by our group, will close effective June 1, 2017. The main reason is that the current District 2 Commissioner, Dee Clemmons, has requested that ALL Confederate flags be removed from the museum, in addition to the gift shop, in an effort not to offend anyone. For anyone who studies the American Civil War, or War Between the States, they realize there were two parties that fought in this war. We have always prided ourselves with being an unbiased museum that told the entire story of the battles that took place on this property, as well as being a voice of the people in Henry County and Georgia during this time. These stories were told mainly through primary sources, sometimes secondary, but never tertiary sources. To exclude any Confederate flag would mean the historical value has been taken from our exhibits, and a fair interpretation could not be presented to each guest. Confederate flags were on this hallowed ground, as were the Union flags. To remove either of them would be a dishonor.

That’s just a bit of what’s been happening. Love it or hate it, it’s important to remember our history — as it was, not as today’s revisionists would like us to remember it.

The Civil War was deadly but generally fought with honor on both sides. I hope we do not have another. If it is a war between the left and right, I foresee little honor on the left.

America is a divided nation

Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar of classical history and a keen observer of current society, asks a good question in Can a Divided America Survive? The answer seems to be “probably not.”

The United States is currently the world’s oldest democracy.

But America is no more immune from collapse than were some of history’s most stable and impressive consensual governments. Fifth-century Athens, Republican Rome, Renaissance Florence and Venice, and many of the elected governments of early 20th-century Western European states eventually destroyed themselves, went bankrupt or were overrun by invaders.

The United States is dividing as rarely before. Half the country, mostly liberal America, is concentrated in 146 of the nation’s more than 3,000 counties — in an area that collectively represents less than 10 percent of the U.S. land mass. The other half, the conservative Red states of the interior of America, is geographically, culturally, economically, politically and socially at odds with Blue-state America, which resides mostly on the two coasts. [Emphasis added.]

The two Americas watch different news. They read very different books, listen to different music and watch different television shows. Increasingly, they now live lives according to two widely different traditions.

Barack Obama was elected president after compiling the most left-wing voting record in the U.S. Senate. His antidote, Donald Trump, was elected largely on the premise that traditional Republicans were hardly conservative.[Emphasis added.]

Red America and Blue America are spiraling into divisions approaching those of 1860, or of the nihilistic hippie/straight divide of 1968. [Emphasis added.]

Currently, some 27 percent of all Californians were not born in the United States. More than 40 million foreign-born immigrants currently reside in the U.S. — the highest number in the nation’s history.

Yet widely unchecked immigration comes at a time when the country has lost confidence in its prior successful adherence to melting-pot assimilation and integration. The ultimate result is a fragmenting of society into tribal cliques that vie for power, careers and influence on the basis of ethnic solidarity rather than shared Americanness. [Emphasis added.]

History is not very kind to multicultural chaos — as opposed to a multiracial society united by a single national culture. The fates of Rwanda, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia should remind us of our present disastrous trajectory. [Emphasis added.]

Either the United States will return to a shared single language and allegiance to a common and singular culture, or it will eventually descend into clannish violence. [Emphasis added.]

Based on Mr. Hanson’s analysis, the answer seems to be that unless America ceases to be as grossly divided as she now is, she will be displaced by something far worse. Indeed, it seems already to be happening. How about this bit of theater?

Members of the audience stood and cheered when the make-believe President Trump was knifed to death. Then, a Bernie Sanders supporter shot two Republican congressmen and a law enforcement officer at a baseball practice session in Alexandria Virginia. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was nearly killed. Fortunately, his status has improved from “critical” to “serious,” and it now seems likely that after more surgery and months of rehabilitation he will be able to resume his congressional duties.

Does President Trump have anything to do with, or about, our current state of affairs?

Much of America’s current division and disharmony is wrongly blamed on President Trump. He has many opponents – the “deep state,” the Federal bureaucracy, Never Trumpers, many Democrats and the lamebrain media, the pro-Democrat bias of which is perhaps unprecedented. He needs to deal with them all, a truly Herculean task.

An article by Roger Kimball titled Trump vs, the Deep State offers some suggestions. Here is his conclusion, but please read the entire article:

The sociology of the Trump presidency—and the anti-Trump “resistance”—is an unwritten chapter in recent American history.  As I say, I suspect it will have to be filed chiefly under “Snobbery, examples of,” but that’s as may be.  This much I am convinced of: 1. Those who identify the “administrative state” (the “deep state,” etc.) as our chief political problem today are correct; 2. Donald Trump really is trying to unravel (“deconstruct,” “drain”)  Leviathan; 3. The right-leaning anti-Trump campaign is so virulent because, even if unwittingly, it is itself part of the overweening bureaucrat dispensation that is the enemy of freedom; 4. Trump will survive to the extent that he is able to follow the example of his hero Andrew Jackson and challenge his challengers by pushing through his agenda undistracted from the yapping of the PC chihuahuas.

I see President Trump as potentially a primary force in restoring at least some semblance of American unity with honor.

Here is a poem I learned when in 11th or 12th grade English class. I have been unable to find it on any search engine, so here it is as I still remember it. I may well have forgotten parts of it. If anyone can supply a link and more of the text, I will be grateful.

An Aristocrat’s Prayer

If thou lovest, reason scatter.
If thou threatenest, make it matter.
If thou swearest, make it hot.
If thou hittest miss him not.
Doest thou argue, do it boldly.
Dost thou punish, do it coldly.
In forgiving hold not back.
And of feasting have no lack.

It is not politically correct, does not yearn for non-confrontation and is unlike anything of which our current establishment leaders would approve. In no way does it resemble “Pretty please, Kind Masters, may we have our country back?” President Trump is unlike members of the establishment; that is one of the reasons we elected him as well as one of the reasons the establishment despises him. He is bold, brash, willing to take strong stands and yet is able sincerely — not as a mere pretense — to forgive his enemies when they warrant it. Neither a Clinton, Bush, Romney nor any other establishment figure would have the potential, or the guts, to do as he does and must do.

 

Posted in America Divided, Divided we fall, United we stand | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Trump’s “Muslim Ban,” Obamacare and Sally Yates


President Trump’s initial executive order imposed a temporary ban on refugees from seven countries where terrorism is endemic and information on potential refugees is scant, pending development of a workable vetting procedure. He later vacated the initial order and replaced it with one affecting only six countries and making other changes not relevant to the points addressed in this article. 

The initial executive order was rejected as unconstitutional, apparently because in violation of the First Amendment (freedom of religion), by several district court judges and the replacement order has had the same fate. The rulings were based, not on the text of the orders, but on Candidate Trump’s campaign references to a “Muslim ban.” Both orders applied equally to non-Muslims and Muslims from the subject countries. Neither mentioned, nor banned, nor applied to anyone from, any other Muslim majority country. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2010 there were “49 countries in which Muslims comprise more than 50% of the population.”

On May 11th, law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote an article titled Sally in Wonderland: The “Curiouser and Curiouser” Position of The Former Acting Attorney General. It deals with the testimony of now-former (fired) acting Attorney General Sally Yates concerning her refusal to allow the Department of Justice to support President Trump’s initial executive order. Ms. Yates was a hold-over from the Obama administration.

Professor Turley opined on Ms. Yates’ decision in the context of this graphic:

Sometimes congressional hearings bring clarity to controversies. Many times they do not. Controversies can become “curiouser and curiouser,” as they did for Alice in Wonderland. That was the case with the testimony of fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week discussing her unprecedented decision to order the entire Justice Department not to assist President Trump in defending the first immigration order. Yates was lionized by Democratic senators as a “hero” and has been celebrated in the media for her “courageous stand.” However, for those concerned about constitutional law and legal ethics, there is little to celebrate in Yates’ stand. Indeed, her explanation before the Senate only made things more confusing. It was a curious moment for the new Alice of the Beltway Wonderland: “Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).”

There has been considerable speculation on why Yates would engineer such a confrontation, but what is more important is her justification for ordering an entire federal department to stand down and not to assist a sitting president. Yates’ prior explanation fell considerably short of the expected basis for such a radical step. She dismissed the review of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by insisting that those career lawyers only look at the face of the order and did not consider Trump’s campaign statements and his real motivations. Of course, many question the use of campaign rhetoric as a basis for reviewing an order written months later by an administration. Most notably, Yates did not conclude that the order was unconstitutional (in contradiction with her own OLC). Rather, she said that she was not convinced that the order was “wise or just” or was “lawful.” She does not explain the latter reference but then added that she was acting on her duty to “always seek justice and stand for what is right.” That is a rather ambiguous standard to support this type of obstruction of a sitting president. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., asked, “Did you believe, then, that there were reasonable arguments that could be made in its defense?” In an astonishing response, Yates said no because she decided on her view of Trump’s real intent and not the language of the order. However, many judges disagree with implied motive as the appropriate standard for review, as evidenced by the oral argument this week before the Fourth Circuit. More importantly, at the time of her decision, many experts (including some of us who opposed the order) were detailing how past cases and the statutory language favored the administration. It is ridiculous to suggest that there were no reasonable arguments supporting the order. [Emphasis added.]

I agree with Professor Turley’s analysis and posted the following comment arguing that there is Supreme Court precedent for ignoring politically oriented campaign rhetoric such as Candidate Trump’s reference to a “Muslim ban.”

Ms. Yates testified that substantially the same standards of review apply to executive orders as to acts of Congress.

When Obamacare was under discussion prior to enactment and when it was enacted, its basis was claimed to be the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who wrote Obamacare and those who voted for it rejected the notion that it was a tax because to accept that classification would have been political suicide. President Obama did not suggest to the public that Obamacare was a tax. He claimed that it was appropriate under the Commerce Clause. As I recall, counsel for the Government rejected classification as a tax during oral argument, relying instead on the commerce clause.

The majority opinion written by Chief justice Roberts held that although violative of the Commerce clause, Obamacare was permissible instead under the powers granted by the Constitution to impose taxes and was, therefore, compliant with the Constitution. Even after the decision was released, President Obama continued to claim that it was not a tax.

Chief Justice Roberts cited the Congressional power to tax the non-purchase of gasoline — something the Congress had never done as to gasoline or any other commodity or service. He did not suggest how it could be done: tax everybody who fails to purchase gasoline, only the owners of automobiles, only the owners of gasoline reliant automobiles, only those owning such automobiles but failing to purchase specified quantities, and so on. As I recall, Prof. Turley wrote an article questioning the majority opinion’s reliance on the taxing powers of Congress. [Professor Turley wrote about the decision in an article title Et tu, Roberts? Federalism Falls By The Hand Of A Friend.– DM]

The evident basis of the Obamacare decision was the notion that acts of Congress are to be upheld if there is any Constitutional basis for doing so — despite politically motivated statements by members of Congress who had voted for it and despite assertions by the President and others that it was not a tax. Under the standard applied by Ms. Yates to President Trump’s executive order, such statements would have rendered Obamacare unconstitutional and obligated her, as Acting Attorney General, to refuse to support it in court. [Emphasis added.]

Ms. Yates was asked neither about the standard applied by the Supreme Court in upholding Obamacare nor her application of an apparently different standard to President Trump’s executive order.

The judges who have thus far rejected President Trump’s initial and second executive order adopted the same rationale as Ms. Yates. The judges who upheld the orders obviously did not.

It is probable that the Supreme Court will eventually decide on the constitutionality of President Trump’s revised executive order, particularly if (as seems likely) there is a split in the circuits. Justice Gorsuch will likely be among the justices who decide the case and the executive order will very likely be held constitutional. There will probably be more than five votes for its affirmation.

In the meantime, America will continue to receive substantial numbers of unvetted and potentially dangerous refugees whose admission the executive orders were intended to prevent. Oh well. What’s a few more American deaths by jihadists? What difference at this point does it make?

Posted in "Muslim ban", Candidate Trump, Chief Justice Roberts, Commerce Clause, Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Department of Justice, Executive Order, Freedom of religion, Islamic Jihad, Islamic refugees, Jonathan Turley, Judges, Libruls, national security, Never Trumpers, ObamaCare, President Trump, Supreme Court, Taxation Clause, Trump agenda | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

There is no viable American alternative to the Muslim reform movement


I have read many articles on the Muslim reform movement, both positive and negative; for example, this is negative, this is positive and this is negative. Here is a link to a response to the negative articles. However, I have found no article suggesting any viable alternative way for America to begin to ameliorate its Islamist problem, and I have been unable to think of any.

The Anti-Muslim Reform Movement

The essential claims of critics of the Muslim Reform Movement are that its proponents are not “real Muslims” and that it has had only minimal success thus far. The word “real” is not used, but that’s the clear thrust. “Real Muslims” are those like the leaders of Saudi Arabia, savages like those of the Islamic State and Muslims who won’t “rat” on other Muslims whom they think are about to commit acts of terror. (The video below repeats itself beginning at about 5:46.)

Unlike “fake” Muslims (the word “fake” is not used, but that’s the thrust), “real” Muslims rape and butcher little girls, often little Yazidi girls who aren’t “real” Muslims.

America’s “real Muslims” also want Islamic (Sharia) law to displace foul “Man-Made” laws, including the U.S. Constitution. That has not worked out well in Europe, and even in our mother country, Britain. There, for one small example, a Sharia Council

is indirectly responsible for what essentially has become a rape pandemic, since it does nothing to stop or refute halala [a ritual enabling a divorced Muslim woman to remarry her husband by first wedding someone else, consummating the union, and then being divorced by him]. In fact, it declares that the practice is completely legal under sharia law. The only caveat, the council states, is that the imams presiding over it are not following the proper guidelines, according to which the second marriage and divorce should not be premeditated, but rather happen naturally.

If one asks how all of this jibes with British law, the answer is that it does not. But young Muslims in the UK are discouraged by their communities from marrying through the British system, and are told to have imams perform their weddings and sharia councils register their marriages. Couples who comply end up being at the mercy of Islamic authorities in family matters, including divorce.

America’s “fake Muslims”  reject Sharia law and even have the temerity to support “Man-made” laws such the Constitution and laws enacted pursuant to it.

Genital mutilation? For “real Muslims,” it’s cool. The Trump administration is apparently the first to try to stop it in America.

(Reuters) – U.S. authorities have charged a Detroit doctor with performing genital mutilation on 7-year-old girls in what is believed to be the first case brought under a law prohibiting the procedure.

Jumana Nagarwala, an emergency room physician at a Detroit hospital who performed the procedures at an unnamed medical clinic in the Detroit suburb of Livonia, was scheduled to appear in federal court on Thursday, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Female genital mutilation constitutes a particularly brutal form of violence against women and girls,” acting U.S. Attorney in Detroit Daniel Lemisch said in a statement. “The practice has no place in modern society and those who perform FGM on minors will be held accountable under federal law.” [Emphasis added.]

Female genital mutilation, or FGM, typically involves the partial or total removal of the clitoris and is barred by numerous international treaties. The practice is common in several African countries, including Somalia, Sudan and Egypt, where it is often a cultural or religious tradition.

The practice was outlawed in the United States in 1996, though the Justice Department said the Michigan case appeared to be the first criminal prosecution of its kind. [Emphasis added.]

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a reformist and therefore a “fake Muslim,” recently commented on the first genital mutilation prosecution in America.

“Healthcare professionals, especially physicians, should be the safest people our children encounter outside of their families. What we at the front lines of reform against radical Islamism know is that one of the ideology’s symptoms is the regular violation and abuse of women and girls, especially through efforts to control or destroy their bodies and sexuality. As a physician, Muslim, father, and husband – I am appalled – but not surprised – to learn of this doctor’s mutilation of girls. I urge authorities to conduct a full and vigorous investigation. Since girls were brought to Nagarwala from out of state, it appears that she may be just a piece of a network of individuals facilitating the mutilation of girls and women in the United States.

As a physician, Ms Nagarwala – I will not call her ‘doctor’ – knows full well the position of the American Medical Association on this issue. As an expert on medical ethics and a person of conscience, I must urge that her license(s) be revoked, that she remain jailed, and that all who acted with her be brought to justice. Further, any girls and women she harmed must receive intensive counseling, and their families investigated. I also encourage investigations of their schools, universities, and other places where they may have complained of physical pain, or been absent for periods of time during which the mutilation took place and immediately after.”

Obviously, the Muslim Reform Movement must not be allowed to succeed and therefore must be stopped before it has a fighting chance to do so.

Seriously though, and rejecting the essential anti-reformation argument — that American reformers are not “real” Muslims — what can and should America’s Federal Government do about violent jihadists and proponents of Sharia law? 

The “fake Muslim” argument has substantial validity insofar as Islamist countries are concerned. However, in America we have freedom of religion; no state actor has authority to dictate what is a “fake” or “real” Christian, Jew, Muslim or adherent to any other religion. Individuals are entitled to accept or reject whatever tenets of their respective religions they wish to. Should acting in accordance with those tenets be criminal in nature — as acting in accordance with many tenets of “real” Islam would be — such acts can and should be punished in accordance with our laws; not Sharia law.

To the greatest extent possible, America needs to get rid of the “real Muslims” who are already present and to keep more from coming. However, our options are quite limited. Here’s why:

America will not impose a total Muslim ban to keep out all Muslims, unknown numbers of whom are potentially violent jihadists and/or “merely” want to win the civilization war by imposing Sharia law. A total Muslim ban would very likely be deemed violative of the First Amendment.

The results of a partial ban based on “extreme vetting,” intended to exclude only those Muslims who flunk the vetting process, would depend on the success of the vetting — an area in which we have had little if any real experience. Muslim reformers might be able to offer useful insights. Perhaps the appropriate officials will ask them.

Even if it were possible to prevent all future arrivals of Muslims from foreign countries, America would still have substantial numbers of Muslims, first, second or later generation, as well as converts to Islam, some of whom are anxious to engage in violent jihad and/or to attempt to secure the imposition of Sharia law. Anti-Islamophobia laws, as recently enacted in Trudeau’s Canada, are a first step toward Sharia law. We won’t shoot all or even many of them, or send them to internment camps as we did to many Japanese after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japanese Americans were incarcerated based on local population concentrations and regional politics. More than 110,000 Japanese Americans in the mainland U.S., who mostly lived on the West Coast, were forced into interior camps. However, in Hawaii, where 150,000-plus Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the population, only 1,200 to 1,800 were also interned.[9] The internment is considered to have resulted more from racism than from any security risk posed by Japanese Americans.[10][11] Those who were as little as 1/16 Japanese[12] and orphaned infants with “one drop of Japanese blood” were placed in internment camps.[13]

Unfortunately, the Obama administration ignored Sharia law, its precursors and consequences.

Even without anti-Islamophobia laws, statements offensive to Islamists (proponents of political Islam such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)) are characterized as “Islamophobic” to silence them. Too often, the tactic has been successful.

America should reject Sharia law as well as its precursor, anti-Islamophobia laws. Much of Europe has embraced both, to its extreme detriment.

The Islamisation of formerly-Great Britain and Europe has been unpleasant to watch from afar, and I assume that it has been substantially more unpleasant to experience close-up. The Gatestone Institute frequently publishes articles on the worsening situation resulting from an Islamic invasion and the resulting Islamisation. Here are a link to a recent Gatestone article titled A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: March 2017 and a short excerpt:

March 18. The BBC apologized after a tweet from the BBC Asian Network account asked, “What is the right punishment for blasphemy?” The tweet provoked criticism that the BBC appeared to be endorsing harsh restrictions on speech. In an apology posted on Twitter, the network said it had intended to debate concerns about blasphemy on social media in Pakistan. “We never intended to imply that blasphemy should be punished,” it said. [Emphasis added.]

Does “what is the right punishment for blasphemy” suggest that punishment of some sort is appropriate? Yes. Does it suggest that the Islamisation of England is proceeding apace? Yes.

Even were England and Europe to prohibit all future Muslim immigration, the substantial numbers of Muslims already there, and their fertility rate which substantially exceeds that of native Brits and Europeans, suggest that their Islamisation will continue.

Conclusions

Here is a May 2015 interview with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) about the then current state of Islam.

I do not know whether there will be widespread Muslim reformation in America or if there will be, how long it will take. It is proceeding very slowly and may well take many years, as did the Christian reformation, to produce tangible results.

Unable to think of any viable alternative, I believe that we should help the Muslim reformation to enhance the ability of American Muslims to accept the parts of Islam they want and to reject the parts they don’t want. Here are some ways:

  • We should stop considering violent Islamic jihad and Sharia law as “real Islam” and Muslim reformers as “fake Muslims.” In America both are real, even though there now seem to be substantially fewer of the latter than of the former. Drawing such a distinction legitimizes the former and delegitimizes the latter — essentially labeling them as apostates and therefore endangering them physically and putting more obstacles than would otherwise exist in the path of a Muslim reformation. How many Muslims want to be considered “fake Muslims?” How many Christians would like to be considered “fake Christians?” How many Jews would like to be considered “fake Jews?”
  • Providing support for Sharia law — unchallenged under Obama — should be a principal factor in our efforts to combat Islamist activities, violent or otherwise.
  • Department of Education efforts to promote Islam in our schools should never have begun and should cease promptly, as I suggested in a recent article titled The U.S. Department of Education has been promoting Islam for years. America is not, and should not be, a theocracy. The Constitution forbids it. The Federal Government should not be in the business of promoting Islam or any other religion.

  • America should terminate all support for, and consultation with, CAIR, et al., which have labeled the Muslim Reform Movement “Islamophobic” and have done their utmost to make it fail. Supporting CAIR, et al, helps them to impose their vision of “real” Islam on Americans, Muslims and non-Muslims.
  • The true nature of CAIR, et al, should be publicized.
  • America should provide at least as much support – financial and otherwise – to Muslim reformist groups as it previously gave to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups such as CAIR.
  • The Trump administration should consult with Islamic reform groups at least to the extent that it previously consulted with CAIR, et al.
  • America should also render CAIR and its affiliates as impotent as can be done constitutionally; to the extent that new laws need to be enacted, they should be.
  • America should publicize the true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • America should designate the Muslim Brotherhood and related Islamist gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, and prohibit both foreign and domestic funding of CAIR and other Islamist organizations. Please see also, Muslim Activist to Trump: Brotherhood Should be Banned.

I hope that others will suggest additional ways to give the reform movement at least a fighting chance of success. What other viable options do we have?

Update, April 19, 2017

Please see also, Kurdistan Independence Referendum and Why It Matters so Much in the Fight Against Radical Islam.

Most Kurds are Muslim, but reject religious rule in favor of secular governance so that all religious people and ethnic minorities can have fair and equal representation. The Kurds have adopted secular lifestyles seen just by visiting the capitol city of Erbil where you’ll hear American music, see a booming economy, or have conversations about new business enterprises.  If you’re lucky, you may run into the Erbil Men’s Club. Kurds don’t identify as “Sunni” or “Shia” at the outset. While they will openly say what religion they practice, they refuse to allow their identity to be encompassed in the sectarian strife they’ve witnessed throughout the Middle East. They want no form of oppressive sharia law in their governance to promote the rights of women and minorities. In fact, Kurdish government mandates that 30% of Parliament members be women. I witnessed that firsthand and it looks a lot like the United States: churches, mosques, and synagogues side-by-side with equal numbers and mutual respect between all religious leaders.

 

Posted in "Fake Muslims", "Real Muslims", CAIR, Islam - human rights, Islam and females, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim reformation, Muslim supremacy, Obama's affinity for Islam, Shari law, Trump and Islamists, Zuhdi Jasser | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The U.S. Department of Education has been promoting Islam for years


The U.S. Department of Education has proselytized in our public schools on behalf Islam for many years through its “Access Islam” program. Federally funded, it is directed at children in grades 5 through 12. The Christian Action Network recently demanded that President Trump’s recently confirmed Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, terminate the program.

According to an article at Breitbart, a predecessor program began during the Bush administration in 2005. It

“simply taught students about the traditions, culture, and holidays of Islam. Then, it became greatly expanded under the Obama administration. It has continued to develop, and now has had a greater, broader outreach.”

According to the linked Breitbart article, “Access Islam” is not only funded by DOE. It is also

“being promoted on various websites,” Martin Mawyer, president and founder of CAN, tells Breitbart News. “So, PBS Learning Media is one of the websites that is promoting it. The Smithsonian also promotes it, the Indiana Department of Education promotes it, and even the United Nations promotes it.”

Here is the blurb following the video:

The United States Department of Education has developed an Islamic indoctrination program for public schools called, ‘Access Islam.’

The lesson plans are written for grades 5 through 12. They include worksheets and videos to help students perform the 5 Pillars of Islam – prayer, fasting, alms giving, pilgrimage to Mecca and the proclamation of Muslim faith. [Emphasis added.”

This short video contains excerpted clips taken from the “Access Islam’ program which not only teaches children how to perform a Muslim prayer, but asks students such questions as: ‘What does a Muslim prayer sound like?’ ‘What do the movements look like?’ and ‘What are some of the things Muslims say during prayer?’

Children are also expected to memorize verses from the Quran and give the meaning of those verses.

Taken as a whole, the U.S. Department of Education’s ‘Access Islam’ program is nothing short of a Sunday school class on Islam.

DOE provides no even remotely comparable promotion of any other religion. Nor should it, because for any federal (or for that matter state) agency to do so is inconsistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Here is a video of an interview with the founder of the Christian Action Network:

President Reject Obama’s affinity for Islam — “the religion of peace” which shall not be spoken of truthfully and whose prophet shall not be “slandered” — got us into this mess along with many others.

Will any of the many major “civil rights” organizations with which America is “blessed” take legal action against state entities which use Access Islam? They have been quite active in opposing even the display of Nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments on public property.

When will Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s recently confirmed Secretary of Education, repudiate the “Access Islam” promotion and insist that all video and other presentations of related materials it provided be returned? The DOE apparently remains a big swamp, very much in need of draining.

Posted in "Access Islam", Department of Education, First Amendment, Islamic indoctrination of children, Public schools, Religion | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments

Highly Classified National Security Information Must Not be Leaked


Evidence of political corruption should be.

It has been obvious since the early Republican primaries that most media coverage of a Trump presidency would be adverse and presented out of context. Perhaps a recent editorial at The Week Magazine explains why, albeit inadvertently. Or maybe this cartoon better explains the media view:

Trump and Putin as seen by the lamebrain media

Trump and Putin as seen by the lamebrain media

According to The Week Magazineall leaks are equal. However, we approve of those which fit our politics and disapprove of those which don’t.

Live by the leak, die by the leak. When WikiLeaks was releasing a steady stream of embarrassing emails hacked from Democratic officials during the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and her supporters cried foul, and urged the press not to report their contents. Donald Trump applauded every new revelation, saying the leaks provided voters with important information, and gleefully invited the Russians to find and publish emails she had deleted. “Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn’t it?” Trump exulted. Now that it’s Trump who is being tortured by leaks, he’s complaining they’re illegal and “un-American.” Democrats, meanwhile, are welcoming the torrent like a rainstorm after a long drought. (See Main Stories.) When it comes to leaks, everyone is a hypocrite. “Good” leaks are ones that damage our opponents. “Bad” leaks are those that hurt Our Side. [Emphasis added.]

But let’s set partisanship aside for a moment. Is it always in the public interest for government officials to leak, and for the media to publish leaked material? Crusading journalist Glenn Greenwald—who angered the Obama administration by publishing Edward Snowden’s trove of stolen NSA documents—argues in TheIntercept.com this week that all leaks exposing “wrong-doing” are good ones, regardless of the leaker’s motives. “Leaks are illegal and hated by those in power (and their followers),” Greenwald says, “precisely because political officials want to be able to lie to the public with impunity and without detection.” The implication of this argument, of course, is that governments, politicians, and organizations should not keep any secrets—that when people in power conceal documents, emails, or information that could embarrass them, they are by definition deceiving the public. Radical transparency certainly sounds noble—but I suspect it’s a standard no public official, or indeed most of us, could survive. It’s so much more convenient to have a double standard: Transparency for thee, but not for me.

I disagree. Leaks of unclassified materials demonstrating corruption of the political process by either party are necessary for an effectively functioning democracy. Leaks of highly classified national security information — particularly in the area of foreign policy — endanger our democracy, are crimes and the perpetrators should be dealt with accordingly. When the media sensationalize leaks of the latter type, they are complicit and must be criticized vigorously.

The press has long served as an objective fail-safe to protect the public from the powers-that-be. That objectivity is now absent and the media’s role in our democratic society is in jeopardy. Rather than self-reflect as to how they got off course, the press have opted to label the man who exposed this derailment as un-American.

What’s un-American is the belief that the press should be unaccountable for its actions. What’s un-American is the belief that any attempt to criticize the press should be viewed as heresy. What’s un-American is the belief that the press is akin to a golden calf that compels Americans, presidents included, to worship the press.

Two very different types of leaks

a. DNC and Podesta e-mails:

The DNC and Podesta e-mails were released as written and posted by DNC officials and Podesta for transmission on unsecured servers easily hacked by modestly competent teenage hackers. I have seen no suggestion that the e-mails were classified. The intelligence community opined that Russian agents had done the hacking, but offered no significant proof beyond that the methods used by the hacker(s) were comparable to those used by Russian hackers in the past.

They found no discrepancies between the original e-mails and those posted by WikiLeaks (which denied that Russia had been the source). The e-mail leaks damaged the Clinton campaign because they portrayed, accurately — and in their own words —  dishonest efforts of high-level DNC and Clinton campaign personnel to skew the Democrat primary process in Ms. Clinton’s favor. They did not involve American foreign policy until Obama — who had previously done nothing of significance to halt Russia’s hacking of highly classified information from our intelligence establishment beyond asking, “pretty please, stop” — decided that Russia must be punished for Hillary’s loss of the general election through sanctions and by the expulsion of thirty-five of its diplomats.

Russian president Vladimir Putin had been expected to respond in kind, with the expulsion of US diplomats from its territory.

However, he later said he would not “stoop” to “irresponsible diplomacy”, but rather attempt to repair relations once Donald Trump takes office.

Mr Trump praised the decision as “very smart.”

b. Flynn telephone conversations:

Neither transcripts nor audio recordings of the Flynn telephone conversations were released. Instead, conclusions of the leakers were released. According to House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes,

“I think there is a lot of innuendo out there that the intelligence agencies have a problem with Donald Trump. The rank and file people that are out doing jobs across the world — very difficult places — they don’t pay attention to what is going on in Washington,” the California representative told CBS “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson.

“What we have is we do have people in the last administration, people who are burrowed in, perhaps all throughout the government, who clearly are leaking to the press,” Nunes added. “And it is against the law. Major laws have been broken. If you believe the Washington Post story that said there were nine people who said this, these are nine people who broke the law.” [Emphasis added.]

Nunes said the FBI and other intelligence agencies ought to investigate who has leaked information to the press because so few people in the administration knew these secrets, that it would have had to have been someone at the “highest levels of the Obama administration” who is an acting official until Trump replaces him or her.

Did the leaker(s) try to present the conversations honestly, or to damage President Trump’s efforts to deal with Russia in matters of foreign policy where American and Russian interests coincide? To disrupt America’s badly needed “reset” with Russia which seemed likely to succeed under President Trump after Clinton’s and Obama’s efforts had failed?

resetbutton

Remember the Obama – Romney debate when Romney characterized Russia as America’s greatest geopolitical threat and Obama responded that the cold war was over and that “the 1980’s are calling and want their foreign policy back”?

The position now asserted by the Democrats and the media seems rather like the position that Obama rejected. If the position(s) of the Democrats and the media are now correct and Russia is again our enemy, might it be due to actions which Obama took or failed to take over the past eight years?

It is unfortunate that there has been a resurgence of Democrat (and some Republican) Russophobia when Russia is reassessing her relationship with Iran and America.

On January 22, 2017, the Russian media outlet Pravda.ru published an analysis on Russia-Iran relations. According to the article’s author, Dmitri Nersesov, Iran is becoming a problem for Russian interests. Nersesov also added that Iran wants Russia to choose between Iran and Washington. “Iran wants Russia to recognize that Teheran holds the key to the regulation of the Syrian crisis. Should Russia decide that the real strategy is built on the cooperation between Moscow and Washington, rather than Moscow and Teheran; the Islamic Republic will be extremely disappointed,” Nersesov wrote. [Emphasis added.]

An American – Russian realignment in areas of mutual concern — which as suggested below had seemed to be progressing well until General Flynn ceased to be involved — would be good, not bad. We have many areas of mutual concern, and Iran is one of them. The war in Syria is another. When were Russians last directed to yell Death to America? Or to refer to America as the “Great Satan?”

c. General Flynn, Russia and Iran

General Flynn had, at President Trump’s request, been dealing with Russia concerning the future roles of Iran, Russia and America in the Syria debacle:

Overlaying US President Donald Trump’s extraordinary, hour-long skirmish with reporters Thursday, Feb. 16, was bitter frustration over the domestic obstacles locking him out from his top security and foreign policy goals. [Emphasis added.]

Even before his inauguration four weeks ago, he had arranged to reach those goals by means of an understanding with President Vladimir Putin for military and intelligence cooperation in Syria, both for the war on the Islamic State and for the removal of Iran and its Lebanese surrogate Hizballah from that country. [Emphasis added.]

But his antagonists, including elements of the US intelligence community, were turning his strategy into a blunderbuss for hitting him on the head, with the help of hostile media.

Thursday, in a highly unconventional meeting with the world media, he tried to hit back, and possibly save his strategy.

That won’t be easy. The exit of National Security Adviser Mike Flynn, the prime mover in the US-Russian détente, sent the Kremlin a negative signal. The Russians began unsheathing their claws when they began to suspect that the US president was being forced back from their understanding. The SSV 175 Viktor Leonov spy ship was ordered to move into position opposite Delaware on the East Coast of America; Su-24 warplanes buzzed the USS Porter destroyer in the Black Sea.

Before these events, Washington and Moscow wre moving briskly towards an understandingdebkafile’s intelligence sources disclose that the Kremlin had sent positive messages to the White House on their joint strategy in Syria, clarifying that Moscow was not locked in on Bashar Assad staying on as president. [Emphasis added.]

They also promised to table at the Geneva conference on Syria taking place later this month a demand for the all “foreign forces” to leave Syria. This would apply first and foremost to the pro-Iranian Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan militias brought in by Tehran to fight for Assad under the command of Revolutionary Guards officers, as well as Hizballah. [Emphasis added.]

Deeply troubled by this prospect, Tehran sent Iran’s supreme commander in the Middle East, the Al Qods chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani, to Moscow this week to find out what was going on.

Flynn’s departure put the lid on this progress. Then came the damaging leak to the Wall Street Journal, that quoted an “intelligence official” as saying that his agencies hesitated to reveal to the president the “sources and methods” they use to collect information, due to “possible links between Trump associates and Russia.. Those links, he said “could potentially compromise the security of such classified information.”

A first-year student knows that this claim is nonsense, since no agency ever share its sources and methods with any outsider, however high-placed.

What the leak did reveal was that some Washington insiders were determined at all costs to torpedo the evolving understanding between the American and Russian presidents. The first scapegoat was the strategy the two were developing for working together in Syria. [Emphasis added.]

Defending his policy of warming relations with Moscow, Trump protested that “getting along with Russia is not a bad thing.” He even warned there would be a “nuclear holocaust like no other” if relations between the two superpowers were allowed to deteriorate further.

It is too soon to say whether his Russian policy is finally in shreds or can still be repaired. Trump indicated more than once in his press briefing that he would try and get the relations back on track.

Asked how he would react to Russia’s latest provocative moves, he said: “I’m not going to tell you anything about what responses I do. I don’t talk about military responses. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea,” he stressed.

At all events, his administration seems to be at a crossroads between whether to try and salvage the partnership with Russia for Syria, or treat it as a write-off. If the latter, then Trump must decide whether to send American troops to the war-torn country to achieve his goals, or revert to Barack Obama’s policy of military non-intervention in the conflict. [Emphasis added.]

Substantially more is generally involved in matters of foreign policy than is facially apparent or than government officials should discuss publicly, particularly while negotiations with foreign powers are underway. Leaks by held-over members of the intelligence community did much to reveal the opinions of the leakers but little to reveal what General Flynn had been doing, while upsetting the chances of better American – Russian relations in areas of mutual concern.

Conclusions — The Administrative State

The Federal Government has grown far too big for its britches, giving the unelected “administrative state” substantially more authority, and hence power, than is consistent with a properly functioning democracy. As they have been demonstrating in recent months, holdovers from one administration can succeed, at least partially, in paralyzing a new and democratically elected president. Holdovers with political appointee status can generally be fired. Few others who should be can be.

Getting rid of the obstructionist “civil servants” who have become our masters should rank very high on President Trump’s “to do” list and should be accomplished before it’s too late. The task may be difficult but is not impossible. Perhaps some particularly obnoxious Federal agencies (or departments within those agencies) can be relocated to places less congenial than Washington. Inner City Chicago comes to mind. So do otherwise pleasant cities in California, where housing prices are much higher than in the Washington, D.C. area. How many Federal employees faced with the choice of relocating or resigning would choose the latter option?

There are likely other and probably better ways to get rid of the fatheads. President Trump’s administration should devise them.

Posted in Corruption, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Leaks, Media and Trump, Michael T. Flynn, national security, Obama and Iran, Obama-Romney debates, President Trump, Putin, Russia and Iran, Trump agenda, Trump and Iran, Trump and Russia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Obama and Kerry want Israel to make “peace” with Palestinians for a two state solution


How can Israel do that when the Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach children to hate and kill Israeli Jews?

 

 

 

Posted in Israel, John Kerry, Obama and Israel, Two state solution | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah


merry-christmashanukkah

 

 

 

 

 

We were delighted with the “surprising” election outcome this year and look forward to a reawakened America under President Trump. He — and the rest of us — have an Augean stable to muck out. We hope for a revitalized and far better America than we have seen for the past eight years and for a better world for all, with no more disgraces of this sort:

Desire for a “two state solution” does not mean that there would be one state for the Jews and another for the Palestinians, living separately but in peace and harmony. Palestinian hatred for non-Muslims would not permit Israelis to live at peace in their separate state. Ultimately, if the Palestinians are successful, it would mean one Palestinian state with no Jews and few if any Christians.

Gaza, which had been controlled by the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah, has been controlled by Hamas since 2007. Despite an annual population growth rate of  2.91% (2014 est.), there are now few Christians.

In 2006, there were 5,000 Christians living in Gaza when hard-line Hamas took power from the more moderate Fatah party. Ten years later, there are just 1,100 left. . . .

In Israel, where Arab Christians have comparatively more opportunities than their Palestinian counterparts, the Christian population has stayed stable. The Christian population grew by about 5,000 in the past 20 years. Today Christians in Israel number 164,700, about 2 percent of the population, a similar ratio to past decades.

If the Palestinian Authority permits free and fair Palestinian elections throughout Israel, Hamas is quite likely to displace the PA as Israel’s “partner for peace.” Hamas is funded and otherwise supported by The Islamic Republic of Iran.

This violence is brought to you by the Religion of Peace and tolerance:

To end on a humorous but nevertheless sad note,

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, with hopes for a better, more peaceful world with less hatred.

xmas2016

Ruff, Dan, Sunshine and Jeanie

Posted in christmas, hanaukkah | Tagged , | 7 Comments