Captain America

Last Sunday evening I was humbled.

I decided to take all four granddaughters to the latest “Captain America” movie, which began at 7.15pm.   I sat there through over two hours of film, not comprehending what was going on.   I was totally bewildered.

Leaving the movie theater at 10pm, we all drove home in my daughter’s RV.   It was very dark outside.   I was driving as all the girls are 9, 10 and 11.

Suddenly, a voice in the back yelled out, “Will my dad be up this late?”

I shouted back, “Which dad?”  Two of the girls belong to our son, Kurt, and two to our daughter, Alix, and her husband, Mike.   And they all have similar-sounding voices.

“MY dad!” was the response.

Again, I asked, “Which dad?”

This time, two girls shouted back,  “OUR dad!”

“Look,” I said, “I can’t see who is asking and there are two dads here. There’s Kurt and there’s Mike.  Which dad do you want?”

This time, the response was clear.   “Kurt.”

Silence followed for a few seconds, then I heard our nine-year-old granddaughter, Elena, turn to her sister and cousins and observe: “I’ve heard that when people are old, they get very confused!”


Perhaps there is some truth to that.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a few years older than me and said something last week that showed she is very confused.   Either that, or she was deliberately misleading people.

She said in a speech that Donald Trump’s call for an end to Muslim immigration would increase terrorism.

If this is true, how does she explain Japan?   They have received no Muslim immigrants – and have experienced no Islamic terrorism!


There was no mention on any news program of the religious background of the man who killed the UCLA Professor a few days ago.   Earlier, he had also murdered his ex-wife.   A “hit list” found at his home showed he intended to kill two professors but the other one was gone for the day.

The man, Mainak Sarkar, was a Bengali immigrant.   Bangladesh is a Muslim country.

Once again, we see the need for a complete overhaul of the rules relating to immigration and naturalization.   Confusion (Babylon) has been the result of the last fifty years when it comes to immigration.


There’s also a lot of confusion over in England, too, over the EU Referendum taking place on June 23rd, less than three weeks away.   The debate has gotten nasty and the country remains very divided.

It’s becoming the norm for foreign leaders to butt in.   US President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Donald Trump have all expressed their opinion.   Mr. Trump has brought forward his visit to the country by two days, now arriving the day before the vote, rather than the day after.   The head of the International Monetary Fund, the German Chancellor, and European Union bureaucrats are all warning of disaster if the country leaves the EU.

Although there are peripheral issues, the fundamental question is: do the British people want their country administered from London or Berlin?   75 years ago, Winston Churchill knew the answer.   Does England need another Churchill to figure it out?

A very important secondary question is: do the British people want their country to remain British, or become a European mix?   The EU’s open borders have led to millions of people from other EU countries flooding into the UK, for its more generous welfare benefits and it’s better economy.   There’s nothing can be done about this as long as they remain in the EU.

The future of the UK is certainly at stake.

The worst possible result is a close vote, with the majority of Scots voting to “Remain” (in the EU) and the majority of English voting to “Leave.”   This would lead to Scotland calling for a second referendum on independence from the UK.   Going it alone could work with help from Berlin and Brussels, the capital of the EU.

It would mean the end of the United Kingdom.

In today’s world where only money seems to matter, I don’t think anybody really understands the full implications of this. “Grey hairs are here and there upon him, and he knows it not.”   (Hosea 7:9).

It’s not just the elderly who are confused!


A final comment on the US presidential election comes from our 11-year-old granddaughter, Paris, who was half-watching the news with me.   Following the usual five-second sound bite from both Trump and Hillary, she suddenly asked:   ‘Why do we have to have a president anyway?   Whey can’t we be like other countries, with a king or a queen?”

After watching this election, it’s no wonder she’s confused!


15 thoughts on “CONFUSION REIGNS!”

  1. I do hope, as my nom-de-plume suggests, I am not one of the elderly who are confused as per your remarks above. As a person who has in various ways suffered my whole life from the unabashed pomposity of English nationals the prospect of England being over-run is not an unacceptable one. Finally, I speak as a fool, the City of London would get off our backs and Brexit could happen or not – it wouldn’t matter.

  2. The more objectionable confusion from Hillary and also her hawk counterparts on the other side of the aisle is thinking that a ‘war on terrorism’ would get rid of terrorism. The data (e.g. Global Terrorism Index report of Nov 2014) soundly disabuses us of the notion that military interventionism is the solution. More than immigration policy, the steady course of military action and regime tinkering (not only since 2001) are the obvious correlative/causal elements that U.S. leaders are confused about (though one could make a case that it is a generosity to call it confusion, but that is another conversation).

  3. Sir, I am also concerned about the claim that Japan has “received no immigrants.” This is not true. There has been a certain meme circulating among more conservative outlets to this effect which has been discredited.
    Politifact, on November 17, 2015, published a truth-o-meter piece detailing that such characterization of Japanese policy on Islam is a “pants on fire,” citing some credible Japanese experts (written by Louis Jacobson, in case you want to search).
    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan website expressly contradicts such a policy approach: “Although Japan does harbor prejudices and Japanese can be ignorant of other cultures, there has been no move to restrict Islamic practices or expel Muslims.” (2008)
    More recently (2014) PM Abe Shinzo said “I have found that a fundamental aspect of the spirit of Islam is harmony with and love for others. I believe therein lie points of commonality with the Japanese spirit, which is founded on co-existence.”
    Japan’s stance and policy have been misrepresented, whether intentionally or otherwise, and it has spread to the point of gaining credibility which is misplaced.
    Maybe your source relied on inaccurate reporting, such as the Kedar report in the Jewish Press. Or the ‘viral graphic’ ? Not sure, but we should probably not criticize HRC for failing to explain something about Japan that isn’t actually true — especially since there are so many other real problems with her as a presidential prospect.

  4. Mr Rhodes’ statement about muslim immigration to Japan was indeed true. The comment was in relation to the recent mass arrival of muslim immigrants to countries in Europe and even Turkey which has suffered several attacks carried out by newly arrived immigrants. Japan has not allowed this.
    When one reads these attempts to render these comments as untrue, you have to be very careful to watch for the “slight of hand” tactic that has become all too prevalent these days. Mr Rhodes’ comment was talking about islamic immigration, the rebuttal shifted the topic to Japanese acceptance of islam within its population… other words, comparing apples to oranges.
    When I see terms such as “has been discredited”, a red flag immediately goes up because that has become a favored way to cause the casual observer to think to themselves “must have been a lie” and move on. Prove ALL things. Pay close attention and the truth will literally leap out at you. How could quotes from 2008 and 2014 have anything to do with actions taken afterwards. Sites like Snopes are experts at twisting the facts.
    Harmless as a dove, wise as a serpent.

  5. Andy, thanks for your dialogue. You try to clarify for Mr. Rhodes what he does not actually say in his post, so it may or may not really be a useful clarification. With respect to the fact in question, he simply stated that Japan has “received no immigrants,” a broad statement that does not qualify by any time frame at all, as though there were no muslims who had been permitted to immigrate to Japan, which is in fact untrue. You attribute to my concern, it seems, a motive to “attempt to render” his comments untrue. This is not at all something I set out to do for some ‘red flag’ reason. I use the word ‘discredit’ to describe what has become of a meme that was circulating about Japan’s approach to Islam and Muslims in their country — a meme which has, in fact, been discredited by several experts within Japan itself. Politifact is a pulitzer-winning source which fact-checks many things, and they published a good discussion of this that you might find useful, including refutations from Japanese experts who confirm what I have offered here. Mr. Rhodes’ comment was talking about islamic immigration, yes – and my ‘rebuttal’ (though I do not consider it a rebuttal as much as offering a helpful correction that anyone ‘proving all things’ should welcome) is also talking about islamic immigration — there was absolutely no shift or slight of hand. This is not an apples to oranges comparison. 2008 and 2014 are entirely relevant to the discussions of Japan’s stance on immigration.
    When you say that Japan “has not allowed this” what source are you relying on to make this claim? Neither Mr. Rhodes nor you has provided a source to verify that broad statement. Japan has never had great numbers of islamic immigrants (think about geography for a moment) and has not been as popular as Europe and other target countries to muslims for whatever reason (again, think about geography, for starters), so it seems highly unlikely that there has been any need whatever for a recent change in their policy. I would be most happy to accept an updated understanding of the situation/policy directives that Japan may have more recently implemented, but I have not been able to find anything credible. I spent a spot of time trying, not to rebut Mr. Rhodes, but to confirm. It turned up the opposite. I have only utmost respect for Mr. Rhodes and his helpful world commentary — which is why I took the time to offer concern about how his brief statement might have, itself, misled readers, being sure as I am that he would not intend to do so. But this is a critical issue and one that deserves careful attention, because the truth does not always just leap out. I wish it were so.

  6. To follow up a bit, here is what I have learned. Japan has been pretty strict about immigration in general — regardless of who you are. There has not been a targeting of Muslims, per se, contrary to the way some conservative outlets have spun the low numbers. Rather than race or religion, Japanese immigration policy has been more restrictive along lines of nationality, again — not around religion. Their policy has not been updated in recent years to reject islamic immigration. The only updates relevant to terrorism go back a number of years (before 2008, in fact) in response to 9/11, but those updates did not include rejecting immigrants based on islamic faith, rather were increased controls of audit and staff to better track who was coming into the country. Recent changes to immigration policy have involved, not religious affiliation, but the implementation of a point system to give preference to highly-skilled immigrants (regardless of religion) which are now needed because of Japan’s precipitous decline in population. Fascinating topic. I’m glad to have learned a bit more about the way things are going for Japan. Based on what I’ve seen, they have much more concern about North Korea than islamic immigration.

  7. Mr. Rhodes’ context was indeed given a timeframe, he referred to Trump’s statement about putting a stop to Muslim illigration, that statement’s context was directly tied to the current wave of Muslim immigrants that were pouring into Europe. Donald Trump stated that he wanted to halt Muslim immigration until mechanisms could be put in place to ensure we weren’t allowing terrorists to freely enter the country. Hillary in a speech afterwards stated that if Trump got his way that terror attacks would increase. Mr Rhodes then mentioned that Japan has allowed no Muslim immigrants and yet have suffered no retaliatory terror strikes which showed that Hillary was either confused or purposely misleading people. The context and timeframe were clear.

  8. Japan has not disallowed Muslim immigrants, so there can be no causal link between a ban on Muslims with absence of terror. It’s logically impossible to make such a claim when its central premise is invalid. If it were actually true, then it would make perfect sense to raise it as an example. It just isn’t true. Mr. Rhodes wrote “They have received no Muslim immigrants – and have experienced no Islamic terrorism!” This statement has no time-frame at all. That it follows mention of Trump’s call for a ban only establishes the specific policy that Mr. Rhodes hopes to contrast with Clinton’s as plausible or not — it does not convey to the statement “They have received no Muslim immigrants – and have experienced no Islamic terrorism!” a *recent* immigration policy time-window. Even if it did, and we look at recent Japanese immigration policy, we find that they have not banned Muslim immigrants. I don’t think it does Mr. Rhodes any favor to insist on a defense of his statement that is grounded on error. I would rather honor his efforts by respectfully pointing out sincerely sought and considered review of the credible evidence which speaks to his commentary. I think HRC is the worst possible candidate for the presidency. And I think a robust debate can be had about her position on whether banning Muslims would minimize terrorism. But if we try to use wrong information about Japan as an example in our debate, we hand the other side a sharpened sword. There are plenty of other things by which to illustrate HRC’s confusion.

    1. I probably shouldn’t have said that. I am content to let each individual read and conclude for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s