Thursday, February 23, 2017

Savages of Stockholm

Europe has many fine traditions. Its newest tradition is the burning car. Why burn cars? Because, as George Mallory once said of mountains, they're there. There are lots of cars around and if you're a member of a perpetually unemployed tribe that wandered up north and forages on social services, you might as well do something to pass the time.

Burning houses is a lot of work and house fires spread. Car fires are simpler. In a welfare state
everyone has houses but not everyone has cars. Burning cars is a way to stick it to those who work for a living. It's also a way to drive off the members of the sickly Swedish tribe and claim the area for your own. And it's also fun.

Either you have a plan for buying a car or for burning a car. Considering the Muslim unemployment rates in Sweden, France and everywhere else, it's safe to say the car burners don't have future plans that involve saving up for a car or taking out a loan for a car or finding work. Cars are things that they steal, either the usual way or by defrauding social services. They might get a car by dealing drugs, but those cars are disposable. One day they'll have to burn them anyway.

If you're the product of an industrialized culture, then you think of a car as a product of work. You realize that it's the product of countless raw materials, that the metals had to be dug out of the earth, that the machines that make it had to be assembled and that men had to stand around putting that into place. And you might be one of those men. And if you aren't, then you might know someone who is.

But if you come from a pre-industrial culture which may have factories, PhDs and cars, but no sense of the connection between product, innovation and effort, then why not burn a car or a city? Things fall into the category of that which you and your family own... and that which they do not. Anything in the latter category may be stolen or vandalized because it has no value.

The notion of a painting in a museum or a scientific principle or an eagle soaring over a lake having value is an abstract notion to you. Value to you is your own identity. A painting is valuable if you own it. If it sits in a museum, then you can either steal it or burn down the museum. The principle is worthless unless you can cash in on it. The eagle is worthless unless you can kill it or identify with it.

Some people would call that savagery, but that sort of talk is politically incorrect. And we all know that there are no such things as savages. The true savages are the people who use scientific principles to make cars and then use the money to commission paintings of soaring eagles for museums because they are greedy exploiters of the planet. On the other hand, the noble savages whose herds of sheep and goats turn fertile land into desert, who burned the great libraries of civilization and who believe that the hair of women emits rays that passing airplanes have to be protected from are close to nature.

A car is just a metaphor. You drive it to work because you work somewhere. You drive it on family vacations because you don't get to spend enough time with your family because you and they are all doing things. You're not sitting around your house with your two wives and eleven kids plotting new ways to scam social services. You go places because you're still the product of a culture that likes the idea of new frontiers. Your car isn't exactly Columbus' flagship, but it takes you places. It's a sign of progress. That's why you own cars, instead of burning them.

Civilization is not a product, it's a process. You can't export it. You can ship a bunch of cars to Somalia, but you can't ship the process that makes a culture build a car. You can hand out PhD's to them based on knowledge and test taking skills, but you can't endow them with a respect for ideas. You can set up democratic elections in Afghanistan and Egypt, but you can't export the process that explains why the elections shouldn't be abolished after the side with the most guns wins.

That's just as true of a lot of the second and third generation immigrants who are no more Swedes than the South Africans became Africans or the English settlers of the American Colonies became Indians. They may own iPhones, dye their hair and listen to the same music that you do, but they often don't have the same assumptions. They bought the product, but not the process. They can drive cars and when they get bored, they can burn them, because they aren't their cars. They're your cars.

And the hair dye and the music and the democratic elections aren't theirs either. Those are things they took from you and if they get bored with them, they'll put on Hijabs, ban music and go back to tyranny, because what they have is a product, not a process. They walked into the movie in the middle and they like some of it, but it's confusing and they don't understand why the hero doesn't just shoot the villain in the head, take his woman and then raise a dozen children in his lair.

After the riots die down and the fires are put out, there will be more talk about integrating them, but what are they being integrated into; a culture that doesn't resist when their cars are torched? Why would they want to join a culture that leaves you unable to protect what is yours? Why would anyone join a culture that makes you so weak and impotent that anyone can come and take what belongs to you?

It's a movie that makes sense if you were there back in the 19th, but not if you suddenly walked in around 1965 or 1995. It's the outcome of a historical process that is hard to explain to people who were never part of the process. They know how the story came out, but not why it matters. And even if they could, their priorities are different. They didn't come here to meld into some gelatinous brotherhood of man but to make life better for their clans.

Most people plan for the future, they just do it in different ways. In Sweden, they plan to buy a car. In Iraq or Somalia, they plan to have eight kids. In Sweden, there isn't supposed to be a biological tribe anymore. Everyone is meant to belong to the progressive transnational tribe which lets you have the good things in life so long as you make some kind of vague commitment to pay more and share them with others. But the savages of Stockholm already have a tribe. And their tribe isn't big on sharing and is a lot more useful in a tight spot.

While the Swedes save up for cars, the Iraqis scam social services for their eight kids. And the demographics suggest that eight kids and no cars beats two cars and one child. Keep multiplying those numbers and the future will have fewer Swedes and fewer cars and a lot more bored Iraqi kids running through what used to be genteel suburbs looking for Swedes or cars to burn.

The native multiculturalists are post-tribal, but the multiple cultures settling there aren't. It's a war that can't be discussed except with the usual accusations of xenophobia and oppression. But those are useless crutches of dogma. They don't do much to restore a burned Audi. This is a conflict between cultures that make things and cultures that take them, between cultures that live for the moment and cultures that live for the next thousand years of manifest destiny.

The Western ideal has been reduced to a personal technocratic utopia built on efficiency and it has collided in the night with an Eastern ideal of the clan and a theocratic utopia built on total purity. That is the kind of conflict that the creed of good fences for good neighbors was meant for, but there are no fences tall enough to work it out within a single nation.

Both West and East have their own processes. And both processes are colliding. The Swedes bring their cars and the savages bring their flames. The burning cars are a metaphor for the impact of Muslim immigration on Sweden and the West.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

The End of Palestine

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create ”Palestine”.

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.

The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.

The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the best weapon of Islamic terrorists.

But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.

A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.

These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.

But they will be less committed to it.

45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That's a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.

The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.

More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.

But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.

Nationalist governments will find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.

Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.

But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.

Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.

Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for an answer.

This won’t mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.

For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.

The real change will be on the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.

The “Palestinian Authority”, a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.

Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.

Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.

It won’t happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.

Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.

Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.

The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its place.

The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.

The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.

“Palestine” is dying. Israel didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.

Friday, February 17, 2017

The Elites are Revolting

The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox. It will be brought to you by BMW. The German luxury automaker is a key advertiser at GQ. And GQ is the headquarters of the Resistance. That's a vlog by Keith Olbermann who returned from his exile at an ESPN Elba to denounce Trump.

"I am Keith Olbermann," Keith Olbermann barks to the peasants and workers of GQ who are taking a break from reading an article on '$100 Cologne that Smells Like Nothing', "This is the Resistance."

When the underground isn't at GQ (The Most Radical Dress Socks to Wear Right Now), it's at Vanity Fair where Graydon Carter denounces Trump (Donald Trump: A Pillar of Ignorance and Certitude) right above a photo of himself taken by Annie Leibovitz smiling smugly from his skyscraper office.

Maybe the resistance is Reed Hastings, the billionaire CEO of Netflix, who used his wealth catering to the tastes of urban elites, to lobby to raise the taxes of the middle class. Hastings whined that President Trump's moves to protect Americans were "so un-American it pains us all.”

Who are this 'us'? It might be Warren Buffett, Google's Eric Schmidt and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, with whom Hastings had joined to support Hillary Clinton. Or it might be the CEOs of Lyft, Airbnb and Twitter, to name a few, who have jointed the anti-Trump resistance of wealthy elites.

It's no coincidence that the most vocal outcry against President Trump's measures have come from urban elites and the corporations that cater to them. It's easy to spot the class divides in the scoffing at Andrew Puzder, CEO of the company behind Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, getting a cabinet position instead of Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg who had been  tipped for Treasury Secretary by Hillary.

Carl's Jr and its 4 Dollar Real Deal are a world away from Facebook's Gehry designed Menlo Park headquarters. Or as a WWE tournament is from Conde Nast's Manhattan skyscraper.

It's hard to imagine a clearer contrast between coastal elites and the heartland, and between the new economy and the old. On the one side are the glittering cities where workforces of minorities and immigrants do the dirty work behind the slick logos and buzzwords of the new economy. On the other are Rust Belt communities and Southern towns who actually used to make things.

Facebook's top tier geniuses enjoy the services of an executive chef, treadmill workstations and a bike repair shop walled off from East Palo Alto's Latino population and the crime and gang violence. And who works in Facebook's 11 restaurants or actually repairs the bikes in the back room? Or looks through the millions of pictures posted on timelines to screen out spam, pornography and racism?

Behind the illusion of a shiny new future are Mexicans getting paid a few dollars an hour to decide if that Italian Renaissance painting you just shared violates Facebook's content guidelines.

If you live in the world of Facebook, Lyft, Netflix and Airbnb, crowding into airports shouting, "No Borders, No Nations, Stop The Deportations" makes sense. You don't live in a country. You live in one of a number of interchangeable megacities or their bedroom communities. Patriotism is a foreign concept. You have no more attachment to America than you do to Friendster or MySpace. The nation state is an outdated system of social organization that is being replaced by more efficient systems of global governance. The only reason anyone would cling to nations or borders is racism.

The demographic most opposed to President Trump is not a racial minority, but a cultural elite.

This isn't a revolution. The revolutions happened in June in the UK and in November in the US. Brexit and Trump were revolutions. The protests against them are a reaction.

Somewhere along the way the political projects of the left ceased to be revolutionary. The left won. It took control of nations and set about dismantling them. Its social and economic agendas became law. It ruled through a vast interconnected system of the bureaucracy, media, academia, non-profits and corporations. In Europe, democracy nearly vanished. In America, there were still elections, but they didn't matter very much. A Republican president could tinker a little, but he couldn't change things. The left would throw its ritualistic tantrums if he limited abortion funding or invaded Iraq. But around the isolated controversies, everything else would go on moving further to the left.

The left had come to envision its victory as inevitable. Its leaders enjoyed the divine right of kings bestowed on them by historical materialism. And so they couldn't see the revolution coming.

The inevitable elites and their power were overthrown. The little people they had been stepping on stormed the castle. All their pseudoscience had failed to predict it. Suddenly the future no longer belonged to the City or to Palo Alto. And its denizens poured out into the streets to protest.

The protests are taking place in the name of oppressed minorities, but like any dot com logo, that's branding. They are actually an angry reaction by an overthrown elite to a people's revolution.

This isn't really about Muslims. The angry protesters know as little about Islam as they do about rural Iowa. But borders and airports are an important metaphor. President Trump said, "A nation without borders is not a nation." And that's exactly what the left wanted. No borders and no nations.

If you make tangible goods or have a mortgage, you are more likely to want borders and a nation. If on the other hand you deal largely in intangibles, in information, in strings of numbers, in data on global servers and financial transactions around the world, in movies and music, in ideas, then borders are an unreal abstraction. If you get your rides from Uber, your house from Airbnb, your entertainment from Netflix and your dates from Tinder, if you don't actually own anything, and have no plans for a family or anything more permanent than a virtual existence, who needs a nation?

Patriotism is an ideal grounded in real things. Our elites exist in an unreal world filled with unreal things. Their world is based on rapid communications that organizes the world in new ways. They have grown so dazzled by the potential of that organization that they ignore what is underneath.

That metaphor became reality with Brexit and Trump. The country rebelled against the city. People who were in the business of making and doing real things rose up against a virtual economy.

The elites are unable to understand the nationalistic and territorial impulses of either their own citizens or Islamic terrorists. Their strange social-plutocratic fusion of Marxism and technocracy sees it as a problem of sharing the wealth. All the popular uprisings can be put down with a bigger welfare state. Redistribute more of the profits from Facebook to Muslims and Trump voters. Problem solved.

But the problem can't be solved by enlarging the welfare class. It's a gaping cultural chasm.

People need meaning. It is meaning that gives them a sense of worth. The angry leftist reactionaries find meaning in their post-everything world. The shattering of this world has driven them into the streets. And yet they can't grasp that it was the shattering of their world that drove so many working people to vote for Brexit or Trump. They refuse to comprehend that nations have meaning to more people than their post-national world order of interchangeable multicultural megacities does or that most people want something tangible to hold on to even if it requires labor and sacrifice.

It was a war between Davos, Conde Nast, GQ, Soros, MSNBC, Hollywood, Facebook and America. And America won.

The "resistance" is a collection of elites, from actors at award shows to fashion magazines to tech billionaires, decrying a popular revolt against their rule. They are not the resistance. They are dictators in exile. They had their chance to impose their vision on the people. And they lost.

The revolution will not be brought to you by BMW, by a Davos conference, by $100 cologne that smells like nothing or by Facebook lobbying. It will be brought to you by the comeback of America.

Friday, February 10, 2017

If We Don't Let in Muslims to America, They'll Kill Us

Trump's executive order is "going to get Americans killed," Senator Murphy declared.

The Connecticut Democrat was joining a chorus of the clueless warning us that if we don’t let
Muslims into America, they’ll join ISIS and kill us.

Singing their brains out in the same stupid chorus were Senator McCain and Senator Graham (“a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism”), Senator Ben Sasse (“the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims”) and Senator Heitkamp (“confirms the lie terrorists tell their recruits: that America is waging a war on Islam.”)

Senator Cardin went one better by whining that keeping potential Islamic terrorists out, “promises to make the U.S. less safe and places our courageous servicemen and women in even greater danger as they fight against terrorism.” Just tell it to the Marines shot and killed by a Muslim immigrant at a Chattanooga recruiting station and Naval reserve center.

There’s only one problem with this hostage crisis theory of immigration. It’s insane.

If they’ll go off and join ISIS if we don’t let them in, what happens when we do let them in?

Why would we want to take in people who express their disagreement with our politics by shooting up a gay nightclub or a social service center that helps the developmentally disabled?

When normal people don’t like a policy, they protest or write a letter to the editor. They don’t plant a pressure cooker bomb next to a little boy or stab college students with a butcher knife.

“Let us in or we’ll kill you” is the least compelling immigration argument ever.

We have our current wave of terror despite legalizing some 100,000 Muslims a year. If we don’t manage 100,000 this year, they are saying that maybe more of the 100,000 from a few years ago will join ISIS and start killing us. And if we don’t legalize 100,000 five years from now, the 100,000 coming into the country this year will become the terrorists of tomorrow.

That’s not an immigration policy. It’s a hostage crisis.

But let’s take one big step back.

ISIS recruitment has nothing to do with our immigration policy. Unless the world’s greatest ISIS recruiter was Obama.

ISIS had zero recruitment problems under Obama. There was no shortage of Muslims lining up to run over, rape, behead, bomb and mutilate non-Muslims even when his refugee policies bent over backward to favor Muslims. Instead that’s when “lone wolf terrorism” by ISIS supporters, some of whom had come here as first or generation refugees, took off.

At the height of Obama’s pro-Islamist policy, ISIS was picking up 2,000 new recruits a month. Even as he rolled out a plan to fight ISIS with aggressive tweeting, the Islamic State gained tens of thousands of recruits. There were investigations of ISIS sympathizers in every state and hundreds of Muslim settlers in America had traveled to join ISIS. Others carried out terror attacks here.

Since none of this could be Obama’s fault, the media took to blaming random people who might make Muslims hate us. A guy who posted a YouTube video was blamed for a Muslim terror assault on our diplomatic compound in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton saw to it that he went to jail. A pastor who planned to burn the Koran got a phone call from the commander of United States Central Command. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that burning the Koran might not be protected by the Constitution. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez refused to rule out blasphemy laws.

None of this shameless unconstitutional pandering to terrorists stopped or even slowed down the tide of Muslim terror attacks. No ISIS recruit lifted a sword and then refused to behead a crying Kurdish teenager because Obama offered Muslims an incredibly generous refugee policy.

Instead Islamic terror got worse.

The same was true in Europe. ISIS had no difficulty finding recruits despite the generous migration policies of the European Union. Germany opened the doors to Muslims and suffered a series of devastating Islamic terrorist attacks. After a million refugees, ISIS still had no trouble finding recruits. Some of these recruits were the very refugees Germany had taken in.

Islamic migration didn’t make Germany any safer. It didn’t prevent ISIS from finding recruits. Instead opening the borders filled Germany with potential ISIS recruits.

Just as taking in large numbers of Muslims filled our country with potential ISIS recruits.

ISIS recruitment numbers fell for reasons having nothing to do with our immigration policy. Muslims stopped joining the Islamic State because it was losing.

Islam only cares about winning. Either you’re killing non-Muslims. Or you’re a loser. Muslim martyrs don’t die for their beliefs. They die while killing others for their beliefs.

If we really want to cut down on ISIS recruitment, the best way to do that is by beating Islamic terrorists. Leftists argued that our presence in Iraq was feeding Al Qaeda recruitment. So Obama pulled out. And Al Qaeda in Iraq turned into the Islamic State and became its own country. It went from a small group of terrorists to fielding an entire army. Obama’s pullout from Iraq allowed ISIS recruiters to build a country and an army.

Appeasing Islamic terrorists doesn’t work. It has never worked. And it will never work.

Closing the door on Muslim terrorists doesn’t endanger us. Opening the door does. Closing the door on terrorists won’t get Americans killed. Opening the door has gotten Americans killed.

When we are told that limiting Islamic immigration will make Muslims more likely to kill us, we are letting Islamic terrorists take our immigration policy hostage. Islamic immigration is the gun held to our heads and the demand enforced by that gun. The more migrants we let in, the bigger and deadlier the gun becomes. It’s time to end this immigration hostage crisis.

If keeping Muslim migrants out of America will make them kill us, why would we let them in?

Thursday, February 09, 2017

The Right to be Better People

The interesting thing about this moment from last night's Cruz vs. Sanders debate is that in this exchange both men are very articulate spokesmen for two different worldviews.

Cruz once called Sanders an honest Socialist. And unlike the Romney vs. Obama or Trump vs. Hillary debates, you are seeing something fairly close to "honest Socialism" here.

Ted Cruz defines what a right is. A right is the freedom to make decisions for yourself.

Bernie Sanders ridicules that. You can make decisions for yourself, but what good does that do you if the government doesn't give you the things you need and you can't afford to pay for them.

Sanders says that rights are entitlements. Cruz argues that they are freedoms.

And that is what the debate comes down to. Freedom or entitlement. And the tricky border where we try to combine the two. But that is what our government does.

The Sanders position is easy. Obamacare doesn't go far enough. The government ought to give you everything you want. And then there will be no problems. Cruz's counter is to show how badly that works around the world. But that's an abstract. The ordinary people in the audience are not especially interested in events in Cuba, the USSR or even Canada.

Entitlements are always more seductive. Especially with a corrupt government that's giving away so many things to so many people anyway. And Sanders can angrily play on class envy. Look at Trump's mansions. Look at how the rich are living. While you can't get the health care you need. It's malicious and misleading. But it's hard to resist.

The left has played this range of emotions, greed, pathos, envy, outrage, like a violin for a long time.

Cruz's counter to it, freedom and principle, are much tougher sells.

Conservatives ask us to be better than we are. Liberals ask us to be worse. They tell us that we ought to be angry and feel sorry for ourselves. And that if we don't have what we want, we ought to take it from others.

At the heart of this is a deeper question.

If a right is freedom, then freedom demands responsibility. But if a right is entitlement, then it's a demand. A demand that others give us what we deserve.

Free people fight for independence. But the left's revolutions are struggles for tyranny. They protest for better masters. They violently agitate for rulers who will run their lives better.

And that too is in the air here. Obama didn't give you enough. Vote Bernie. BernieCare will do everything that ObamaCare didn't. And if it doesn't, there's SteinCare. Or the NHS.

The left claims to be rational, but Bernie is playing on emotions. He's agitating for outrage. And he's angry. The thing that he is angry about may not really be health care. It probably isn't. Radicals channel personal anger into political outrage. How many of the anti-Trump marchers really hate Trump. How many of them hate their parents or their meaningless lives.

Freedom asks us to be better people. It tells us that we have responsibilities to live up to. The left imposes responsibilities on us. It gives us no choice in them. Just as it gives us no choice in health care.

The debate, every genuine debate between conservatives and the left, comes down to the question of whether we want to be better people. Do we want to have the right to choose or the right to get stuff. This is often a difficult question. It's especially difficult when it comes to health care. Yet the seductive answer, the one offered by Sanders, is deeply corrupting and doomed.

No society can be better, more able to make good decisions, than the people it is composed of.

Socialism degrades the people and enters a failure cycle in which it is less able to live up to its promises with every descent into deeper government control. In health care, Socialism gradually corrupts the system into a hybrid over-regulated mess that raises costs until only the government can fund it. And then only the government can ration it. But de-socializing medicine is too painful and scary. It's easier to try and tinker with it, to "repair" ObamaCare instead of getting rid of it.

And then the cycle spirals further down.

A society lives or dies by its people. If they can take on responsibilities and make good decisions, then it can grow and be strong. If they can't, then it decays.

And everything else is just bread and circuses.

Our founding documents endow us with the right to be better people. That is what built the America we have. Being better people is hard work. It's always more seductive to take the left turn.

That is why civilizations don't last. The Romans got tired of virtue and principle. So did the Europeans. Virtues and principles are just too much work. They get in the way of what we really want. Whether it's health care or smashing the other guy in the face. Values are for squares. Decency is for the prissy. Principles are for pussies. Morals are for hypocrites. Doing the right thing is for suckers. Hard work is for those too dumb to game the system.

Entitlements can give us some of what we want. For a short time. But no entitlement can make us better people. And it takes being a better person to achieve what we truly want, whether it's building a family, a business or a nation. Short cuts past virtue work for some, for a time, much like any entitlement. But they don't work for societies. Individuals can take from others. But societies can't. The individual can redistribute. But everyone can't live off redistribution. Not even if they take everything from all the "rich" people.

Morals are like that too. A society can support some degree of criminality, immortality, dishonesty and assorted abusive behaviors. But it can't function when a growing minority and then majority no longer does anything except seek short term advantages at everyone else's expense.

Then it does. And it leaves behind some impressive buildings. And historians wondering what went wrong. The answer is as simple as it is obvious. It's the people that went wrong.

It's always the people.

Governments exist to do the will of the people. In free nations, government do this in an open and representative fashion. In other systems, the mechanism is covert. The dictator is the id of the people, as Stalin was in Russia or Saddam in Iraq, committing the atrocities they wish to commit, without being willing to admit it. Under the left, the repressive system steals on behalf of those who want a government that steals for them, that terrorizes for them and that murders for them.

Socialism is inherently dishonest. Sanders is about as close to an honest Socialist as you can get on a  national debate stage. But his Socialism is a lie. The left seduces us into evil. That is what it always does. It seduces us into agreeing to let men like him do our dirty work for us. It tells us that we can have everything we want without having to go over to our neighbor's house and steal his things.

It plays on our emotions. It summons up pity and outrage. And in the end it leaves us with nothing.

The only honest societies are those of free people. Moral or immoral. The tyranny of authority is inherently dishonest. It seduces and destroys by warping our moral codes to justify its abuses because it is giving us what we think we want. Its deepest crime is that it, like Sanders, assures us that we are good people. That is why the left is always outrage and always reassuring its followers that they are good people. A lie reveals the truth underneath.

What is evil? It doesn't start out as a fanged monster. Though it can end up that way.

Instead it seduces us by telling us that we do not need to be better people because we are wronged. It teaches us anger and self-pity. It tells us that we have the right to hurt others because we have been hurt. It says that society is inherently immoral and that we don't have to follow its rules. It promises us that it will build a better society in accordance with our needs and whims. It assures us that such a society will be good... because we are good people.

And if we are good people, then what we will do must be good.

How could good people be bad? How could a society based on the idea of helping everyone by taking away their freedom and giving them everything they need be bad?

Good people can't do bad things. If we set out to do good by giving everyone health care, the end result must be good. If it isn't, then it's because someone sabotaged it. Or it didn't go far enough.

We have the right to be better people. And we have the right not to. That's freedom.

Everything that we do has consequences. We are responsible for what we do. The first lie of those who deprive us of our freedom is to assure us that consequences and responsibility can be collectivized. We have the right to believe anything we want. But belief does not change reality. Mobs don't eliminate responsibility or consequences. They just obscure them for a little while.

We always have the freedom to choose. Free societies tell us this. Tyrannies lie to us. When we forget that we have freedom and responsibility, then we fall into evil.

Monday, February 06, 2017

The Left's Persecution of Real Refugees from Islam and Communism

The President of the United States announced that refugees fleeing persecution by a totalitarian regime would be deported. It did not matter that they had risked their lives to come here.

They would be sent back.

No leftist lawyers crammed airports. No protesters chanted at terminals. No celebrities offered sanctimonious lectures about “who we are”. No one dared to call the lying thug behind it un-American.

Because his last name was Obama and the refugees were Cubans fleeing socialism.

Their arrival irritated the leftists gleefully going on tours of Havana while worrying that capitalism would ruin all the poverty, misery and oppression they were showing off on their Instagram pages.

The same leftists howling over Trump’s refugee pause from Muslim countries cheered loudly for Obama’s Cuban refugee ban. A majority of Cuban Americans had voted for Trump.

So the left wanted to keep them out of America.

The media outlets selling sniveling sob stories of Muslim families cheered when President Clinton sent in an anti-terrorist unit brandishing submachine guns to abduct a little Cuban boy at gunpoint from his family. "We literally wanted these people frozen with fear," a BORTAC commander boasted.

That is how the left treats actual refugees.

When they lecture us on “who we are,” remember that this is who they are.

While Obama and the left have been lecturing us on the poor Syrian refugees, they have done everything possible to keep real Syrian refugees, Christians and Yazidis, out of America.

Christians made up 10% of the population of Syria. Two thirds of Syrian Christians were displaced by the ongoing Muslim religious war. But only 1% of the Syrian refugees admitted by Obama were Christian.

98.8% were Muslim.

Of the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrian Christians, Obama took in 125 in his final year.

While real refugees were kept out, Obama threw open the doors to Sunni Muslim migrants: many of whom sympathize with their Sunni Islamic terrorist side from Al Qaeda to ISIS. Obama had armed and aided the Sunni Islamic “freedom fighters” in Syria who were oppressing and displacing Christians.

These are the fake refugees on whose behalf the left is protesting at airports.

President Trump has pledged to overturn Obama’s covert ban on Christian refugees. The leftist protesters aren’t there to support refugees, but to oppose his plan to help Christian refugees.

These aren’t pro-refugee protests. They’re pro-migrant and anti-refugee tantrums. Their real message is to keep Obama’s ban on Syrian Christian refugees while importing more migrant Muslim terror.

The left does not support actual refugees because the majority of those are fleeing either leftist or Islamist regimes. And the left is the unofficial lobby for the former and supports the latter.

Joe Biden, Jerry Brown and other leftists fought tooth and nail against bringing Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees to America. George McGovern insisted that they “would be better off going back to their own land.”

Amnesty International, which beats the Muslim refugee drum louder than anyone else, joined in the effort to cover up Communist genocide in Cambodia. "Allegations made by refugees must be examined with care in view of their possible partiality," the left-wing organization warned. It claimed that it did not want to “embarrass” the Communist mass murderers by exposing their misdeeds in public.

Cambodian genocide denial lived on until the bodies could no longer be covered up.

The left has shamelessly invoked the plight of Jewish refugees from the USSR and Nazi Germany.

It was FDR, the great hero of the left, who sent Jewish refugees to die in Nazi concentration camps. While leftists like to place the blame on Congress, the FDR administration went to great lengths to keep out even those Jewish refugees that could have been legally admitted with security reviews.

These tactics were used to keep out as many as 117,000 Jews.

An administration memo called for removing “discretion” from consuls so that there would no Raoul Wallenbergs or Chiune Sugiharas on FDR's watch while “advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.”

The FDR administration even pressured other countries in the region not to accept Jews.

FDR had a long history of anti-Semitic remarks. He had even defended Nazi anti-Semitism in private conversations. The most horrifying of his remarks came when Stalin and FDR were discussing the “Jewish problem”. Stalin had already been engaged in massacring the Jews. FDR quipped to Stalin that he would give the six million Jews of the United States to King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile the left had spent a long time denying that Jews were even persecuted in the USSR.

The first boom in Soviet Jewish emigration occurred under Nixon. More Jews were able to leave the USSR in one year of Nixon than during LBJ’s entire term in office. In Nixon’s last full year in office, 35,000 Soviet Jews were allowed to leave. In Carter’s first year, the numbers were barely half that. There was an equally dramatic difference between Carter’s last year in office and Reagan’s first year in office.

Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, had intervened to offer parole to Soviet Jewish refugees while Carter had sought to suspend Jackson-Vanik which was forcing the USSR to free Soviet Jews.

It is the left that stands on the side of the leftist anti-Semites who oppress and persecute Jews.

When the Marxist Sandinistas persecuted Jews, they were the toast of the left. John Kerry lobbied for them and Bill de Blasio supported them. But President Reagan courageously denounced them.

“The Nicaraguan Communists claim that they're not anti-Semitic, they're just anti-Zionist. Well, as anti-Zionists, they desecrated Managua's synagogue and drove the small Jewish community into exile,” President Reagan said, describing graffiti reading, “Death to the Jewish pigs.”

Who cared about those Jewish exiles? Reagan. Not the left which glorified the Marxists scribbling, ‘Death to the Jewish pigs’ on synagogue walls.

Today the left is doing the same thing to Christian refugees that it did to Jewish refugees.

Obama’s people fought hard to prevent the Boko Haram terrorists who were massacring thousands of Christians and bombing churches in Nigeria from being named as a foreign terrorist organization. He sided with the Muslim Brotherhood church bombers in Egypt and with Palestinian Authority Jihadists killing Jews in Israel.

Everything Obama did is the policy of the left. Not just in America, but also in Europe and in Canada.

The left has formed an alliance with Islamic terrorists. Some of the lawyers who rush to airports to aid Muslims detained on immigration charges also rush to prisons to help Muslim terrorists detained in plots to massacre Americans. They don’t love refugees. They hate America. They hate us.

The left hates real refugees. It hates them because real refugees want freedom.

Cuban and Soviet Jewish refugees voted for Trump because they know what it’s like to live under the left. The Christian refugees fleeing the Middle East are the first to warn about the dangers of Islam.

That’s why the left will do everything it can to keep them out of this country. There is nothing that a totalitarian movement hates and fears more than people who love freedom.

Behind the moral theater of the editorial page and the sanctimonious circus at the airport is a horrific crime. The left has aided and abetted genocide from the USSR to Nazi Germany, from Asia to the Middle East, while providing aid and comfort to the monsters behind these horrors. The greatest intellectuals of the left defended the horrific crimes of Communism as they whitewash Islamist crimes today.

Nothing has changed.

Leftists are really protesting at airports for the continuation of Obama’s Christian refugee ban. They are screaming their lungs out to keep the Christian refugees fleeing Islamic terror out of this country.

The left hasn’t turned out in force to save Muslims. It has marshaled its haters to kill Christian refugees.

Thursday, February 02, 2017

A Clash of Civilizations in Colorado

A crisis came to Longmont, Colorado. And for once it wasn't snow falling from the sky.

Instead top Longmont officials appeared less worried about the piles of snow that blocked off roads and closed schools than a politically incorrect octogenarian as they converged on the home of an 83-year-old man to demand that he take down a yard sign critical of Islam and Muslim immigration.

"Muslims kill Muslims if they don't agree. Where does that leave you, 'infidel,'" the sign asked.

A story ran in the local paper. The Denver Post took note. The Associated Press headlined this vital story as, “Longmont man refuses to take down anti-Muslim sign”. The refusal of an 83-year-old man to recant his politically incorrect, but factually correct, statement on Islam had become a national crisis.

Some of the coverage contained information about the location of an elderly man standing up to Islamic terrorists. But there was no objection to putting his life in danger because of his “objectionable” views.

Longmont's Public Safety Chief and the Community and Neighborhood Resources Manager visited Harry McNevin to urge him to take down the sign or change the wording. A variety of other public officials also weighed in. A protest was contemplated as soon as the potential protesters could “figure out exactly what he means”. McNevin helpfully explained, "They're not our friends, they're our enemies."

Or as Islamic teachings put it, “Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them.”

The threats poured in after the newspaper articles. And they succeeded. The temperature fell well below zero and the sign came down. The left had notched another social justice victory. It had every reason to be proud of itself. It had terrorized an 83-year-old man to prove that Muslims aren’t terrorists.

But it’s not just Muslims who terrorize dissenters. Leftists have a long history of intimidating, jailing and killing those they disagree with. The war on Islamophobia is a perverse fusion of two intolerant ideologies protecting their privilege to remain above criticism.

Longmont is an unlikely target for Islamic terrorism. And yet it intersects with another encounter with Islamic terror. Start out at the offices of the Longmont Times-Call and drive up to the University of Northern Colorado. Assuming the snow isn’t too bad, it’ll take you around an hour to make the trip. And there’ll you will find one of the more obscure battlefields in the current Islamic war against the West.

The name Sayyid Qutb won’t ring any bells in Greeley, Colorado. It’s doubtful that anyone remembers an ugly, scowling man with bulging eyes and a little Hitler mustache who lived there in the 50s.

But Qutb certainly remembered them.

Back then the Muslim Brotherhood monster who serves as an inspiration to Al Qaeda, Hamas and ISIS was just another foreign student at Colorado State College. Like many of them, he violently loathed America and everything about it. Hardly any aspect of life was safe from Qutb’s envy and loathing. These he distilled into a hateful tract with furious subtitles such as, “Americans Are Free of Humanity”.

The American character was “deformed” and the people he encountered were “abysmally primitive” who might as well be living in “jungles and caves”. They were in love with “hardcore violence”. The churches of Greeley were places of “meeting and friendship” or “as they call it in their language ‘fun.’" Qutb even managed to describe in breathlessly outraged tones the lyrics of "Baby, It's Cold Outside."

He groused that football was a primitive game of “great violence and ferocity” which was misnamed because “the foot does not take part in the game”. Reflecting typical Islamic racism, Qutb ranted that jazz was created by “savage bushmen” to “satisfy their primitive desires... for animal noises.” American clothes were too garish and primitive. Even the barbers who gave him haircuts had “awful taste”.

They probably didn’t even appreciate his carefully nurtured Hitler mustache.

Qutb lusted for the “enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests” even as he denounced the “overwhelming lust for the sensual pleasure” of Americans. He paid close attention to “the round breasts, the full buttocks” of Greeley’s women and girls. The women represented America to the Egyptian Islamist, as to so many Islamists after him, desirable and hated.

America was unimaginably advanced. Qutb had been a big fish in a small pond. His background, like that of many Muslim Brotherhood figures, was with the landowners. But even Greeley couldn’t help making him feel backward and small; a primitive savage in a land where peasants could live like kings.

Behind his sneering lay the sense of inferiority that motivates Islamist violence. Islamic colonialism asserts its supremacist conviction of superiority out of that same resentful knowledge that it is inferior.

Qutb’s writing, like all Islamist works, argued for the natural superiority of Muslims. All these arguments are necessary because even casual observation shows the superiority of the American way of life to the Islamic way of life. It is Qutb’s civilization that is guilty of the flaws and faults he attributed to America.

It was not the Americans who were "enthralled" with "flowing blood and crushed limbs." It was a Hamas suicide bomber from Qutb’s own Muslim Brotherhood movement who boasted, “We are a blood-drinking people and we know that there is no better blood than Jewish blood.” It was a member of Qutb’s Muslim Brotherhood Free Syrian Army in Syria who was videotaped eating a human lung.

Qutb wrote that the “American love for peace” was an “illusion”. But it’s the Islamic peace that is the illusion. Islamic peace is achieved only through war. Muslims fight an endless war for peace against the rest of the world and an endless war against each other to establish their version of the “peace”.

So Harry McNevin pointed out in a place not too far from where Qutb fulminated against America.

It was not the people of Greeley who lacked all regard for the sanctity of human life or respect for the dead. It is Qutb’s devout Islamic followers who cry, “We love death, you love life.” And it is they who swarm over the bodies of their victims and their terrorists alike, holding up bloody body parts.

Nor was it the good people of Greeley who lacked sexual mores or self-control. That too could be found in Qutb’s Muslim Brotherhood mobs swarming and assaulting women in Tahrir Square. Taharrush gamea mobs of Muslim men converging on women, groping them and tearing off their clothes, have been documented from Cairo to Cologne.

Qutb’s indictment of Greeley attributed to the American “other” the malignancies of Islam. Once the sins of Islam are laid on the West, then it may be saved from persisting in the pre-Islamic darkness of Jahiliyyah through conquest, colonization and mass murder by the vanguard of Islamic civilization.

For over a thousand years, Muslim colonialism has destroyed countless civilizations the same way. America is only the latest to face the invasion. Qutb, like Mohammed and countless predecessors, looked upon Greeley, Colorado and decided it could be vastly improved with slavery and beheadings.

Harry McNevin’s critique of Islam is far shorter and to the point than Qutb’s critique of America. But unlike Qutb, McNevin does not waste his time on trivialities such as critiquing haircuts or complaining about anecdotal incidents. Instead he notes that Islam does not bring peace even among Muslims.

It’s a critique that can have no answer. The Muslim world’s perpetual violence speaks for itself.

And so the Muslim Brotherhood, the men who walk in Qutb’s hateful footsteps, invented the very tool that would be used to censor Harry McNevin. They popularized the accusation of Islamophobia.

The followers of that bigot with the bulging eyes and the Hitler mustache found a way to silence an 83-year-old man and his yard sign. They did it with the complicity of the Coloradans whom Qutb hated.

The crisis in Longmont, Colorado has been settled. The yard sign is gone. And with the departure of that piece of wood, goes the need to think about what all the Qutbs who arrive here every year will do.

As the snow falls in Longmont, the clash of civilizations continues around the world.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

3 Questions to Keep Future Muslim Terrorists Out of America

The Nonimmigrant Visa application form filled out by the 9/11 hijackers asked, “Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?” They checked the box that said, ‘No’ and they were in.

The current incarnation of the form asks the same perfunctory and generic question. An actual terrorist is as likely to check the box as he is to finger a rosary while eating a ham sandwich and singing Hava Nagila. But since 9/11, the terrorist threat has evolved from foreign cells penetrating this country to domestic Islamist terrorists emerging out of Muslim settlements already occupying this country.

Most Islamic terrorists that the FBI has been dealing with had no specific terror plans at the time that they entered this country. Some Islamic terrorists, like the Tsarnaev perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing, came here as children. Others, like Omar Mateen, the Pulse shooter, and Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contrived to be born in this country to foreign parents.

Immigration screening has to do more than just ask terrorists to check a box if they plan to fly planes into our skyscrapers. We must identify visitors and immigrants who are at a high risk of becoming terrorists in the first or second generation. The only way to do this is with a holistic strategy that examines the worldview of new immigrants and the Islamic communities they intend to be part of.

Instead of checking a perfunctory box, it is important to interrogate how a Muslim applicant views his religion and its interaction with the rest of the world. And to examine the mosque he plans to attend.

For example, attendees at the infamous Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia included Nidal Hasan, its former Imam was Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, and a number of key figures associated with the mosque were linked to Islamic terrorism. Any Muslim immigrants planning to attend the mosque could be considered at high risk for engaging in terrorism regardless of their stated views. Our current screening methods are laughably crude.

The immigrant visa form asks about engaging in and funding terrorism. It does not however specify what a terrorist group is. Muslims define terrorism differently and do not consider many of the Islamic terror groups listed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list to be terrorists.

It asks about membership in the “Communist or other totalitarian party” and participation in various Columbian terrorist and militant organizations. Despite the thousands of people killed by Islamic terrorists in this country in the last few decades, it fails to ask anything about specific Islamist groups.

That should change.

Despite all the assurances about vetting, the forms don’t even bother to ask about membership in Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas or their parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what the Communist party was to subversive and terrorist groups during the Cold War.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian organization. Its motto is, “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” This credo reflects the objective of a theocratic Islamic State to be achieved through any means: including violence. Its members have perpetrated and aided Islamic terrorism here and around the world. These include Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and the Brotherhood perpetrators of the genocide in Sudan.

Any Muslim immigrant who had ties to the Brotherhood has falsely answered the question and should be deported. If he falsely answered this question on his naturalization application, he should be subject to denaturalization and deported. Any Muslim who has subsequently become involved with Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, ISNA, the MSA and countless others, should be investigated for pre-existing links with the terror network and prevented from becoming a citizen of this country.

Communities where Muslim immigrants propose to settle should be tested for their extremism levels as defined by the preponderance of Muslim Brotherhood institutions. Muslim immigrants who seek out communities under the influence of Brotherhood institutions should be considered at a higher risk of engaging in terrorism either in the first or second generation without regard for their current views.

Our goal is not just to stop terror plots now. Our goal must be to stop terrorism a decade from now.

Our counterterrorism is reactive instead of proactive. Reactive counterterrorism is measured by the time we have to react. When a terrorist opens fire in a shopping mall, reaction time is measured in minutes or seconds. His original descent into Islamic terror plots may go on for months or years. But the closer we get to the source of the problem, the more lead time we have until we are no longer reactive, but proactive. Instead of rushing to stop the next attack, we can transform the entire battlefield.

That must be our objective.

Our biggest problem is that we aren’t asking the right questions. Asking a Muslim if he is a terrorist is the wrong question. Islamic terrorists don’t see themselves as terrorists. They view themselves as devout Muslims. That is how we must see them if we are to find them out and stop them before they strike.

The root cause of Islamic terrorism is the idea that Muslims are superior and non-Muslims are inferior. Exposing this conviction won’t be done with a terrorism check box. Many Muslims who go on to commit acts of terror in the name of Islamic Supremacism have no such plans when they enter the country. They do however believe that there is a primal struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is this belief that they eventually put into practice at some later date by actually engaging in Islamist violence.

Instead of asking them whether they are terrorists, we ought to ask them how they view their participation in American life in light of the Koranic verse that commands Muslims, "O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends. ”And whether they are willing to disavow the message of such terrorist verses of the Koran as, “Do not take friends from them unless they migrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn away (from Islam), seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

If they are not willing to disavow calls for the murder of non-Muslims, such as, "I will cast terror into the hearts of non-believers. Therefore strike off their heads”, they present a serious terrorism risk.

Can we really afford to allow Muslim immigrants into the United States who believe that they ought to "fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief: i.e. worshiping others besides Allah) and the religion will all be for Allah"? What better predictor of terror risk could there be than those who believe that they must “kill the non-believers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them?” This is the origin of Islamic terrorism. It’s the acid test for every Muslim migrant.

It all comes down to three simple questions.

1. Have you ever had any associations with the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its front groups?

2. Will you commit to avoiding associations with Brotherhood mosques and other entities in this country? Are you aware that you may be deported if you do not?

3. Do you disavow the following verses of the Koran calling for violence against non-Muslims?

Such simple questions are far more relevant than a terrorism check box because they address what terrorists actually believe, not what we believe about them. They will not stop an active terrorist, but asking them will help keep out the terrorists of tomorrow.

They are not the final step. But they are a first step that can easily be taken next.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Stop Muslim Terror by Stopping Muslim Immigration

Lone wolf terrorism is the biggest trend in Islamic terrorism. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism, it requires no cells stretching across countries the way that 9/11 did. The perpetrators don’t even need to enter the country under false pretenses the way that the World Trade Center bombers did.

In many cases, they are already citizens. Some were even born in their target country.

Classic counterterrorism is directed at organizations. It’s inadequate for stopping individual Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen who was able to murder 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando or closely related duos like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston or the husband and wife team who carried out the San Bernardino terrorist attack which took the lives of 14 people.

Even the standard technique of planting informants into mosques, deeply opposed by the Islamic lobby in the United States, fails when individuals decide to act alone or only trust their wives or brothers to be in on the plot with them. If an individual Islamic terrorist fails to let his plans slip, either online or to an FBI informant, stopping him can be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible without a stroke of luck.

And Islamic terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

The reason is simple. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism which required organization and infrastructure, the new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims.

Lone wolf terrorism operates entirely off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. Any Muslim or Muslims who have settled in a particular non-Muslim country can answer the call of Jihad at any given time without warning.

There is no way that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies could begin to monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. The FBI alone has almost 1,000 active ISIS cases it was investigating last year in all 50 states. It does not have nearly the resources it needs to handle them.

As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow. No matter how much law enforcement expands the scope of its operations, it will not be able to keep up with the high natural birth rates of the Muslim settler population whose terrorists don’t need a fraction of the training or skills that trained law enforcement figures do. The more the Muslim population grows, the more terror attacks like Orlando, Boston and Nice will get past law enforcement.

Any technological or logistical solutions to this crisis on the law enforcement end will only be band aids.

The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

If this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again? Accompanying these rising population numbers will be rising influence by the Islamic lobby. Islamic groups such as CAIR with a history of terror ties and opposition to counterterrorism will have even more power to stymie law enforcement investigations. The end result will be far more successful Muslim terrorist massacres taking place on a constant basis.

Muslim immigrants are already inherently privileged when it comes to their ability to enter this country ahead of far more peaceful and far more deserving groups. For example, the vast majority of Syrian refugees admitted to this country are the Muslims who perpetrated and are perpetuating their religious war in the region rather than their Christian and Yazidi victims who face slavery and genocide at their hands.

This Islamic immigration privilege must be withdrawn. Muslim immigration must at the very least be scaled back to a level that law enforcement can cope with. At best it must end entirely until the Muslim world manages to stabilize its way of life to the extent that it can peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims.

There will be endless arguments over what percentage of Muslims support terrorism, but our own experience of recent attacks shows that many of them came from attackers who overtly appeared to be “moderate” and “ordinary”. For every Islamist activist dressed in Salafist fashion and tweeting praise of ISIS, there is at least one, if not many more, whom you would pass on the street without a second look.

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaevs did not seem like Jihadists. They would have been classed with the general category of “moderate” Muslims. And then they struck.

That is how it is.

The internet has decentralized terrorist training camps. Any Muslim can acquire the skills and equipment he needs to kill a few or a dozen or even a hundred if he chooses to follow his religion.

Not every Muslim will shoot up a nightclub or bomb a marathon, but we have no foolproof way of telling them apart. And even many Muslims who would not shoot up an office party in San Bernardino will still sympathize with the perpetrators. And even those Muslims who don’t will often continue supporting the Muslim lobby of organizations like CAIR that stymie law enforcement investigations of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim immigration makes Muslim terrorism worse.

Once we understand this inconvenient truth, then everything else naturally flows from it. The type of terrorism that we are dealing now won’t be beaten by breaking up organizations or droning terrorist leaders in training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. The enemy is right here. He speaks our language. He walks down our streets. He looks at us with hate in his Halal heart and he plots to kill us.

He may pledge allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but he is part of the larger organization of Islam. It is this organization, more than any of its Jihadist factional subdivisions, that represents the true threat.

Lone wolf terrorism is a viral threat that is spread by Islamic migration. We can only end it by closing the door. As long as the door to the Muslim migrant stays open, we will live under the threat that our neighbor or co-worker will be the one to kill us tomorrow or the day after that.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

End the Media

Last week the media lost its mind over reports that press briefings might be moved from the White House back to the Eisenhower Office Building next door where President Eisenhower held the first ever televised press conference.

Media outlets issued panicked reports of being “evicted”, “kicked out” or “exiled” from the cramped theater that used to be the White House’s indoor swimming pool. There was outrage at the thought that they might have to take an equally short walk to the White House Conference Center where they had already worked while the Bush White House spent millions in taxpayer money renovating the room.

"The press went crazy, so I said, 'Let's not move it.'" President Trump finally reassured them.

He got as much gratitude for it as President Nixon did for ruining a perfectly good indoor pool and as President Bush did for spending a fortune renovating it. Instead the media began spreading the same conspiracy theories accusing Bush of plotting to permanently banish them from the White House.

And that’s exactly what President Trump should do.

“There’s no way the people are being served if they kick the people’s representatives out of the People’s House,” Ron Fournier absurdly postured. The people elected President Donald J. Trump. Nobody elected Ron Fournier. The National Journal he works for, like most of the Atlantic media properties, specializes in inside baseball for insiders.

Trust ratings and approval levels for the media are so far down in the toilet that it would take a plumber to find them. If the media are the people’s representatives, then the people want to elect different ones. Those are some of the same representatives that the media is trying to ban from social media with a fake “Fake News Crusade” and by resisting any expansion of press briefings with threats and warnings.

“We’ll have to consider doing things other than protesting and whining,” Fournier threatened. “We’ll have to think about what we can do to bring some pain to make our point.”

Do what?

Run items accusing President Trump of being a traitor, a liar, a racist, a rapist and a Batman villain? The media has already done all of those. What else is it going to except shout more lies even louder?

Within a brief span of time, the media’s fake news operation claimed that Trump had banished the bust of MLK, lifted quotes from a Batman villain and had been cavorting with Russian prostitutes.

And that he was a compulsive liar.

That last accusation is notably hilarious considering the honesty and integrity of the media.

We have had to endure days of the media screaming about crowd sizes at the inauguration and the anti-Trump march they were promoting, of claiming that a sentiment as generic as returning power to the people was lifted from a Batman villain, and of dismissing the worst abuses of their colleagues, whether it was lying about the MLK bust, lying about Rick Perry’s job or peddling the lies of the Steele dossier as intelligence work, as mistakes while shouting that Sean Spicer was a liar. Enough is enough.

Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post’s media columnist and former public editor of the New York Times, declared, “President Trump intends to make the American media his foremost enemy.”

If she had a shred of honesty, she would admit that the media had made him its foremost enemy.

The media will tell any lie about Trump. It starts every day by accusing him of a dozen different things. And it ends every day by accusing him of a dozen others. It has no standards and no ethics. When one lie, such as the claim that Trump had banished the bust of Martin Luther King, falls apart, they roll out another one. Then they inflate the lie they just told by reporting on it as if it were an actual event. It’s time to get the press out and restore the White House indoor swimming pool to its original function. The press can remain in it if they don’t mind wet clothes, moldy laptops and ruined cameras.

Press conferences used to be called in the Oval Office and reporters would hang out close to the action. Then, largely Republican presidents, helped make the media’s occupation permanent. And its sense of entitlement grew. It now believes that it has more of a right to be there than President Trump.

President Trump should disabuse them of that delusion.

When we talk about the media, we really mean the representatives of a handful of corporations who are in the business of advocating for the left and attacking the right. There is no journalism involved in all this: only opposition research. The distinction between the media and the political left no longer exists.

There is no reason to embed a voice of the political opposition in the White House whose only function is using the press briefings as platforms for their smears. Nor is there any reason to provide special status to a handful of corporate left-wing operatives while leaving out the rest of the spectrum.

Trump has been opening up more opportunities for conservative media. And that’s a good thing.

The media’s tantrums over being moved from the little theater, no matter how moldy and crumbling it might be, isn’t sentiment; it’s status. Keeping the space small allows them to limit who gets in.

It’s time to open it up.

After the tantrum the media threw over Spicer’s briefing, there is no reason to keep their private club around. Move it out of the White House and open it up to various journalists across the spectrum.

The media hates the idea of Trump tweeting. They ought to get used to it. Their old form of access journalism with its layers of privilege, anonymous sources and selective leaks is the old way. And it makes no sense to provide access journalism to a media whose only agenda is soliciting malicious leaks.

Digital access isn’t the future. It’s the present.

The White House press corps is an outmoded institution. There’s no need to crowd a small number of media elites into a limited space. Or any space at all. We live in a world of instantaneous communications. Every smartphone is capable of doing more than the laptops that reporters were laboring over in the Clinton years. Any of the men and women in that room can email or text their questions. The briefings serve no useful function except as political theater by a privileged class.

President Trump has vowed to drain the swamp. A good place to start is the smarmy swamp of privilege over the White House indoor pool. The small club of the press corps is the embodiment of the old establishment and its corrupt gatekeepers that he has vowed to get rid of. Instead of sparring with them in briefings, it’s time to eliminate their special status and strip them of their privileges.

Trump doesn’t have to go to war with the press corps. All he has to do is make it irrelevant.