MULTICULTURALISM A FAILURE?: Without a doubt! Multi-culti has failed always and everywhere it has been attempted. It is cast in stone that there must be one legal system, one dominant culture for any country or nation to effect a harmonious environment for all its people. Have a look at the Austro-Hungarian Empire trying to unify and hold together the Magyars of Hungary, the Christians of Austria, and in the Balkans the Muslims of Bosnia, the Christians of Serbia and weld them into a functioning whole. It failed miserably and led to the two most destructive world wars ever. Or try the Ottoman Empire that disintegrated before our eyes trying to hold together disparate cultures of Egyptians, Spanish, Syrians, Jews and all the rest and again in the end their oppression failed to hod it all together. Europe is finding this out today, country by country where they opened their borders and societies to Muslims who have refused to assimilate but enjoy the employment and welfare benefits of each of these countries. as clashes are inevitable as the conflicting values of each group clash. We are well beyond this failed experiment in the West.
WE ARE HAVING OUR OWN MULTI-CULTURAL FAILURE: It's difficult to account for what's going on in this country with the black community and the serious eruptions of violence we are now experiencing throughout the land. Barak Obama and his choice of Attorney General have a lot to do with it as race relations have never been worse since they election of the first black President.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS PERFIDY:If there's anyone, anywhere who can support Democrats after seeing this video, they deserve what they get in life. So far they've given us Obama and that is enough.
SCOTTISH SECESSION'S LESSON:ACTUALLY, I've never fully understood why the South did note the right to secede from the Union in 1860?
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Friday, September 19, 2014
Friday, September 19, 2014
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AT WORK: Who's looking after taxpayers. The answer: No one!
REASONABLE PERSPECTIVE ON IRAQ INTERVENTION: This war was far from wrong in this context.
FOLLOW UP ON ALYAAN HIRSI AT YALE:It is a clash of civilizations, for better or worse.
THE MIDDLE EAST MESS AT PRESENT:
FOREIGN POLICY Washington’s Ruling Class Is Fooling Itself About The Islamic State Washington's foolish approaches to the Islamic State will not destroy them or discourage others from following in their footsteps. Angelo Codevilla By Angelo Codevilla SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 Share on email Email Share on print Print Follow Us on Twitter Like Us on Facebook Hangout with us The American people’s reaction to Muslim thugs of the “Islamic State” ritually knifing off the heads of people who look like you and me boils down to “let’s destroy these bastards”—which is common sense. But our ruling class, from President Obama on the Left to The Wall Street Journal on the Right, take the public’s pressure to do this as another occasion for further indulging their longtime preferences, prejudices, and proclivities for half-measures in foreign affairs—the very things that have invited people from all over the planet to join hunting season on Americans. This indulgence so overwhelms our ruling class’s perception of reality that the recipes put forth by its several wings, little different from one another, are identical in the one essential respect: none of them involve any plans which, if carried out, would destroy the Islamic State, kill large numbers of the cut-throats, and discourage others from following in their footsteps. Hence, like the George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and for the same reasons, this exercise of our ruling class’s wisdom in foreign affairs will decrease respect for us while invigorating our enemies. The WSJ’s recommendations, like the Obama administration’s projected activities, are all about discrete measures—some air strikes, some arming of local forces, etc. But they abstract from the fundamental reality of any and all activities: He who wills any end must will the means to achieve it. As in Bush’s war, as is the custom in Washington nowadays, our ruling class’s several sectors decide what actions they feel comfortable undertaking about any given problem, while avoiding reasonable judgment about whether these actions will actually fix the problem. This is the very definition of irresponsibility. But they call it “strategy.” Irresponsibly Avoiding Debate Our Constitution prescribes that war happens subsequent to votes by elected representatives. By debate and vote, presumably they reconcile the war’s ends with the means to be employed. But to reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses. Yet because these are what our ruling class lives by, leaders of both parties have joined to preclude such debates and votes. They granted congressional funding for the one part of Obama’s venture with regard to the IS that required it—arming some of the Sunni rebels against Syria’s Assad regime—while avoiding votes on what precisely that or any other part of the venture means. This is textbook irresponsibility. To reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses. Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a Marine veteran, objected: “We need to crush ISIS and not work on arming more Islamic radicals. Just what would arming these people accomplish?” To prevent massive numbers of Republican congressmen from joining this common-sense question, the House Armed Services Committee’s bill requires the administration to answer it in a report to Congress some time in the future, but not now. The fact that the administration and the leaders of both parties—the ruling class—did not make reasoned answers to the key questions the primary premise of their request suggests not so much that they are hiding these answers from others as much as that they themselves have not addressed the questions. In the Senate, the ruling class avoided any vote at all by placing the money for arming the Sunni rebels into the Continuing Resolution for keeping the government open. This device, which reduces the senators’ choice to funding everything the the ruling class wants or “shutting down the government,” has become the principal way by which the ruling class dispenses with the Constitution. Experience Says We’re Crazy Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)’s common-sense objection to arming the Sunni rebels might as well have been voiced by any ordinary citizen for all the effect it had: “Our past experience, after 13 years, everything that we have tried to do has not proven to be beneficial, not proven at all. So what makes you think it’s going to be different this time? What makes you think we can ask a group of Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?” The WSJ notwithstanding, while the ‘moderates’ will take U.S. money and arms, no amount of ‘vetting’ will or can cause them to fight the IS for us. The answer is that our ruling class does not think, as much as it indulges its imagination and believes its own spin. A prime example of which is the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial of September 17. Never mind that the Islamic State’s Sunni subjects welcome the ritual beheaders who rule over them because these are Sunni as well. “The brutality,” writes the WSJ, “has created conditions similar to those that preceded the Sunni Awakening in Iraq in 2007—the revolt by ordinary Sunnis and their tribal leaders in Anbar province against al Qaeda.” This follows the Bush administration’s spin concerning the so-called “surge.” In fact however, Iraq’s Sunnis sought America’s protection in 2007 not against any other Sunnis but against the Shia death squads that had begun massacring them in large numbers. According to the same fantasy, conducting air strikes today against the IS in former Iraq and Syria would encourage its Sunni-Wahabi fighters to defect to the ranks of U.S.-supported “moderate” Sunnis. This neglects not only that the flow of fighters in the region has always gone only in one direction—away from the less pure and less brutal to the purer and most brutal Islamists. It also neglects the incommensurability of the two sets of fighters’ objectives. The “moderates” are mostly Syrians interested in governing Syria, while the Islamic State’s fighters are led by Saddam’s Iraqi cadre, have fighters from all over the world, and have pan-Islamic objectives. Joe Manchin is right. The WSJ notwithstanding, while the “moderates” will take U.S. money and arms, no amount of “vetting” will or can cause them to fight the IS for us. While Obama limits himself to unexplained confidence that Sunni Arab states will join in fighting the IS, the Journal supposes to know why they have not done so yet, and why instead they have been helping the jihadis: because our aid to the right Sunnis in 2012 and 2013 was “microscopic and half hearted.” This was the aid being brokered by the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and cut off by mortar shells expertly aimed by we know not whom. But the WSJ knows who’s to blame for the Sunni Arabs’ failure to meet the ruling class’s expectations: “Some Conservatives.” Get Your Heads Out of The Sand Like the Bush administration, Obama and the Journal are grasping at what they imagine to be a vast reservoir of inherently moderate Sunni peoples and governments. Just show them how pro-Sunni America really is, and this vast moderate wave will submerge the terrorist threat to America. Thus the Journal writes that we dare not just make war on the IS that makes war on us. No. “Sunnis will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.” You see, the real game lies in making nice to Sunnis. Believing in the saving power of a ‘moderate Sunni’ wave is as politically correct though patently silly as believing in global warming after years of record cold. Obama has made clear that he envisages a very limited, tightly targeted air campaign against the IS. It goes without saying that this cannot possibly hurt it severely. But, were the U.S. government somehow to mount a serious air campaign, nevertheless the inescapable fact remains that the IS can be finished off only on the ground. But how? By whom? Obama stays away from the question. The Journal, however answers: “the Kurds, the parts of the Iraqi military that aren’t dominated by Iran’s militias, and the moderate Sunnis in Syria and Iraq.” This is beyond dumb. Believing in the saving power of a “moderate Sunni” wave is as politically correct though patently silly as believing in global warming after years of record cold. All know that the Kurds will fight only for Kurdistan. The Iraqi army has proved beyond doubt that, as a fighting force, it exists only insofar as it is composed of Shiite militias. But our inward-looking, bipartisan ruling class refuses to deal with reality. War consists of massive killing that dispirits the survivors. Yet our ruling class refuses to consider how many of what categories of people will have to be killed in order to end this war with the peace we want. War does not tolerate solipsism. Yet again, consensus within the ruling class is setting America on course to demonstrate impotence. Its preferences, prejudices, and proclivities guarantee that the Islamic State and those among us whom it inspires will be a growing problem as months and years pass. Harsh consequences will follow until a political vehicle for the expression of the American people’s common sense comes into being. Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.
REASONABLE PERSPECTIVE ON IRAQ INTERVENTION: This war was far from wrong in this context.
FOLLOW UP ON ALYAAN HIRSI AT YALE:It is a clash of civilizations, for better or worse.
THE MIDDLE EAST MESS AT PRESENT:
FOREIGN POLICY Washington’s Ruling Class Is Fooling Itself About The Islamic State Washington's foolish approaches to the Islamic State will not destroy them or discourage others from following in their footsteps. Angelo Codevilla By Angelo Codevilla SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 Share on email Email Share on print Print Follow Us on Twitter Like Us on Facebook Hangout with us The American people’s reaction to Muslim thugs of the “Islamic State” ritually knifing off the heads of people who look like you and me boils down to “let’s destroy these bastards”—which is common sense. But our ruling class, from President Obama on the Left to The Wall Street Journal on the Right, take the public’s pressure to do this as another occasion for further indulging their longtime preferences, prejudices, and proclivities for half-measures in foreign affairs—the very things that have invited people from all over the planet to join hunting season on Americans. This indulgence so overwhelms our ruling class’s perception of reality that the recipes put forth by its several wings, little different from one another, are identical in the one essential respect: none of them involve any plans which, if carried out, would destroy the Islamic State, kill large numbers of the cut-throats, and discourage others from following in their footsteps. Hence, like the George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and for the same reasons, this exercise of our ruling class’s wisdom in foreign affairs will decrease respect for us while invigorating our enemies. The WSJ’s recommendations, like the Obama administration’s projected activities, are all about discrete measures—some air strikes, some arming of local forces, etc. But they abstract from the fundamental reality of any and all activities: He who wills any end must will the means to achieve it. As in Bush’s war, as is the custom in Washington nowadays, our ruling class’s several sectors decide what actions they feel comfortable undertaking about any given problem, while avoiding reasonable judgment about whether these actions will actually fix the problem. This is the very definition of irresponsibility. But they call it “strategy.” Irresponsibly Avoiding Debate Our Constitution prescribes that war happens subsequent to votes by elected representatives. By debate and vote, presumably they reconcile the war’s ends with the means to be employed. But to reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses. Yet because these are what our ruling class lives by, leaders of both parties have joined to preclude such debates and votes. They granted congressional funding for the one part of Obama’s venture with regard to the IS that required it—arming some of the Sunni rebels against Syria’s Assad regime—while avoiding votes on what precisely that or any other part of the venture means. This is textbook irresponsibility. To reconcile ends and means is to banish illusions and pretenses. Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a Marine veteran, objected: “We need to crush ISIS and not work on arming more Islamic radicals. Just what would arming these people accomplish?” To prevent massive numbers of Republican congressmen from joining this common-sense question, the House Armed Services Committee’s bill requires the administration to answer it in a report to Congress some time in the future, but not now. The fact that the administration and the leaders of both parties—the ruling class—did not make reasoned answers to the key questions the primary premise of their request suggests not so much that they are hiding these answers from others as much as that they themselves have not addressed the questions. In the Senate, the ruling class avoided any vote at all by placing the money for arming the Sunni rebels into the Continuing Resolution for keeping the government open. This device, which reduces the senators’ choice to funding everything the the ruling class wants or “shutting down the government,” has become the principal way by which the ruling class dispenses with the Constitution. Experience Says We’re Crazy Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)’s common-sense objection to arming the Sunni rebels might as well have been voiced by any ordinary citizen for all the effect it had: “Our past experience, after 13 years, everything that we have tried to do has not proven to be beneficial, not proven at all. So what makes you think it’s going to be different this time? What makes you think we can ask a group of Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?” The WSJ notwithstanding, while the ‘moderates’ will take U.S. money and arms, no amount of ‘vetting’ will or can cause them to fight the IS for us. The answer is that our ruling class does not think, as much as it indulges its imagination and believes its own spin. A prime example of which is the Wall Street Journal’s lead editorial of September 17. Never mind that the Islamic State’s Sunni subjects welcome the ritual beheaders who rule over them because these are Sunni as well. “The brutality,” writes the WSJ, “has created conditions similar to those that preceded the Sunni Awakening in Iraq in 2007—the revolt by ordinary Sunnis and their tribal leaders in Anbar province against al Qaeda.” This follows the Bush administration’s spin concerning the so-called “surge.” In fact however, Iraq’s Sunnis sought America’s protection in 2007 not against any other Sunnis but against the Shia death squads that had begun massacring them in large numbers. According to the same fantasy, conducting air strikes today against the IS in former Iraq and Syria would encourage its Sunni-Wahabi fighters to defect to the ranks of U.S.-supported “moderate” Sunnis. This neglects not only that the flow of fighters in the region has always gone only in one direction—away from the less pure and less brutal to the purer and most brutal Islamists. It also neglects the incommensurability of the two sets of fighters’ objectives. The “moderates” are mostly Syrians interested in governing Syria, while the Islamic State’s fighters are led by Saddam’s Iraqi cadre, have fighters from all over the world, and have pan-Islamic objectives. Joe Manchin is right. The WSJ notwithstanding, while the “moderates” will take U.S. money and arms, no amount of “vetting” will or can cause them to fight the IS for us. While Obama limits himself to unexplained confidence that Sunni Arab states will join in fighting the IS, the Journal supposes to know why they have not done so yet, and why instead they have been helping the jihadis: because our aid to the right Sunnis in 2012 and 2013 was “microscopic and half hearted.” This was the aid being brokered by the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and cut off by mortar shells expertly aimed by we know not whom. But the WSJ knows who’s to blame for the Sunni Arabs’ failure to meet the ruling class’s expectations: “Some Conservatives.” Get Your Heads Out of The Sand Like the Bush administration, Obama and the Journal are grasping at what they imagine to be a vast reservoir of inherently moderate Sunni peoples and governments. Just show them how pro-Sunni America really is, and this vast moderate wave will submerge the terrorist threat to America. Thus the Journal writes that we dare not just make war on the IS that makes war on us. No. “Sunnis will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.” You see, the real game lies in making nice to Sunnis. Believing in the saving power of a ‘moderate Sunni’ wave is as politically correct though patently silly as believing in global warming after years of record cold. Obama has made clear that he envisages a very limited, tightly targeted air campaign against the IS. It goes without saying that this cannot possibly hurt it severely. But, were the U.S. government somehow to mount a serious air campaign, nevertheless the inescapable fact remains that the IS can be finished off only on the ground. But how? By whom? Obama stays away from the question. The Journal, however answers: “the Kurds, the parts of the Iraqi military that aren’t dominated by Iran’s militias, and the moderate Sunnis in Syria and Iraq.” This is beyond dumb. Believing in the saving power of a “moderate Sunni” wave is as politically correct though patently silly as believing in global warming after years of record cold. All know that the Kurds will fight only for Kurdistan. The Iraqi army has proved beyond doubt that, as a fighting force, it exists only insofar as it is composed of Shiite militias. But our inward-looking, bipartisan ruling class refuses to deal with reality. War consists of massive killing that dispirits the survivors. Yet our ruling class refuses to consider how many of what categories of people will have to be killed in order to end this war with the peace we want. War does not tolerate solipsism. Yet again, consensus within the ruling class is setting America on course to demonstrate impotence. Its preferences, prejudices, and proclivities guarantee that the Islamic State and those among us whom it inspires will be a growing problem as months and years pass. Harsh consequences will follow until a political vehicle for the expression of the American people’s common sense comes into being. Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
NCAA RACKET: Once again taxpayers take it in the shorts. So do students' parents!
GOOD EXPLANATION OF CORPORATISM:Corporatism is not capitalism. It is state directed capitalism that thwarts capitalism at every step
WHY TECH COMPANIES SUPPORT OPEN BORDERS:
GOOD EXPLANATION OF CORPORATISM:Corporatism is not capitalism. It is state directed capitalism that thwarts capitalism at every step
WHY TECH COMPANIES SUPPORT OPEN BORDERS:
A prominent public policy professor said massive increases in guest-worker visas for some of the most prominent high-tech companies will only pull the ladder out from under Americans trying to move into the middle class.
On The Laura Ingraham Show Monday, Ron Hira, Howard University's public policy professor, blasted high-tech companies and lobbies for claiming that there is a shortage of American workers, while companies like Microsoft are laying off 18,000 American workers.
"This is really important because the STEM degrees, information technology and engineering in particular, have been real pathways to the middle class," he said. "It’s been a traditional path for working class kids to study. It’s a very meritocratic set of occupations, unlike some other areas. By cutting this off, we are cutting off that upward mobility to the middle class for so many of the working class kids."
Ingraham has previously mentioned that illegal immigrants are taking construction work that used to be good-paying jobs for college kids and Americans trying to get into the middle class. In the white-collar world, massive increases in guest-worker visas are taking jobs away from Americans trying to move up the economic ladder.
Hira, on a conference call earlier this year, said that the IT sector had been "an area of social mobility."
"You've got people who come from working-class backgrounds who go into these sectors," Hira said. "It's a way of getting into the middle class and the professional class, and that's being cut off."
FWD.us President Joe Green has suggested that foreign workers were "truly great," while American workers are "just sort of okay." Hira blasted Green's assertion that high-tech companies need more guest-worker visas to attract the "best and the brightest," noting that the "typical H-1B worker really has no more than ordinary skills and is willing to take lower wages."
"It's really about cheaper labor. That's what's going on. They're trying to drive down wages. If anybody doubts that, just look at the lawsuit against many of the largest Silicon Valley firms where they had a wage fixing scheme," Hira said, adding, "It's all about keeping wages low" for the high-tech industry.
He also said it was "really dangerous to be stapling a green card to every Master’s graduate [diploma] in a STEM field" because that would give colleges incentives to be diploma factories for foreigners who want green cards.
"What that does is it basically puts universities as the gatekeepers for admission into the U.S. on permanent residence," he asserted, "and they have a conflict of interest because they can make a lot of money basically selling green cards by setting up a Master’s program that is, say, 12 months." He added that this approach will "attract a lot of students who are not coming for the education but are coming because they have a path to a green card."
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
A DISCUSSION THE CONCLUSION OF WHICH WE KNOW: This is a really serious matter that must be addressed quickly.
NOW THIS MAKES SENSE: This business of assimilation holds true for Mexicans as well as Muslims.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALL OF GREAT BRITAIN: Why would anyone not take the Muslim Brotherhood seriously. Western civilization is in deep, deep trouble and there is a frightening lack of awareness of this. Mostly, I think, because most people are simply working so hard to "make it" and others are struggling to keep their heads above water in failing economic conditions. meanwhile Muslims are emigrating to Western Democracies everywhere and are not assimilating to the local culture and mores. Instead they are milking the availability of the many welfare programs available to them and breeding alienated children who are turning to radical islamists. What's w in broadorse we are seeing the the eruption of largely black Muslim terrorists like the ones who murdered a 19 year old New Jersey college student who was innocently stopped for a red light at an intersection close to his home. Their reason for murdering this all-American young man? Because he was an American and Americans are responsible for the deaths of Muslims in the Middle East. It was at least the second random murder of Americans for this reason by these two jihadists in the past two weeks. Who's to blame for all of this mayhem? Most likely this is all the end result of multiculturalism and political correctness run amok. Politicians trolling for votes see new constituencies, feel good liberals see the opportunity to help minorities improve their lot, average citizens are passive bystanders, too busy with making a living to expend valuable energy getting involved in controversial policies better left to elected representatives. But time has run out. Great Britain is an example of where this toxic mix of passivity and political cynicism is leading. The Muslim population has grown 74% in the past 10 years and now numbers close to 3 million. That's 3 million in a population of 60 million, approaching 5% of the total population of the Island. Can the demand for Sharia Law by these people be far behind?
THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: Hillary is a fascist, pure and simple. She is a Saul Alinsky trained fascist at that. Barak Obama was also trained by Saul Alinsky, a socialist.
THE END OF AL GORE: One can only hope Algore is exposed and disgraced somewhere along the way.
NOW THIS MAKES SENSE: This business of assimilation holds true for Mexicans as well as Muslims.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FALL OF GREAT BRITAIN: Why would anyone not take the Muslim Brotherhood seriously. Western civilization is in deep, deep trouble and there is a frightening lack of awareness of this. Mostly, I think, because most people are simply working so hard to "make it" and others are struggling to keep their heads above water in failing economic conditions. meanwhile Muslims are emigrating to Western Democracies everywhere and are not assimilating to the local culture and mores. Instead they are milking the availability of the many welfare programs available to them and breeding alienated children who are turning to radical islamists. What's w in broadorse we are seeing the the eruption of largely black Muslim terrorists like the ones who murdered a 19 year old New Jersey college student who was innocently stopped for a red light at an intersection close to his home. Their reason for murdering this all-American young man? Because he was an American and Americans are responsible for the deaths of Muslims in the Middle East. It was at least the second random murder of Americans for this reason by these two jihadists in the past two weeks. Who's to blame for all of this mayhem? Most likely this is all the end result of multiculturalism and political correctness run amok. Politicians trolling for votes see new constituencies, feel good liberals see the opportunity to help minorities improve their lot, average citizens are passive bystanders, too busy with making a living to expend valuable energy getting involved in controversial policies better left to elected representatives. But time has run out. Great Britain is an example of where this toxic mix of passivity and political cynicism is leading. The Muslim population has grown 74% in the past 10 years and now numbers close to 3 million. That's 3 million in a population of 60 million, approaching 5% of the total population of the Island. Can the demand for Sharia Law by these people be far behind?
THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: Hillary is a fascist, pure and simple. She is a Saul Alinsky trained fascist at that. Barak Obama was also trained by Saul Alinsky, a socialist.
THE END OF AL GORE: One can only hope Algore is exposed and disgraced somewhere along the way.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
IT IS PAST DUE TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE MUSLIMS: The bottom line: There are no moderate Muslims.
THERE ARE INFORMATIVE LINKS TO VARIOUS MUSLIM ORGANIZATION IN THIS ARTICLE: You have to ask yourself why the Democrats cater to these people so much.
THERE ARE INFORMATIVE LINKS TO VARIOUS MUSLIM ORGANIZATION IN THIS ARTICLE: You have to ask yourself why the Democrats cater to these people so much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)