Tag Archives: 1965 Immigration Act

IS A MUSLIM BAN DISCRIMINATORY?

abe-lincoln-slaves

The fuss over the executive order relating to Muslims entering the US once again highlights just how ignorant most people are of history.   This is especially true of the left, who keep on repeating the mantra that discrimination is un-American.

Perhaps they have never heard of slavery, or maybe they just want to forget it as the Democrats were the party of slavery.

Anyway, discrimination has been common in American history, going right back to the first settlements in Jamestown and Massachusetts Bay.   Both colonies were founded by WASPs, for WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants).   The location of Jamestown was chosen to hide from Catholics intent on kidnapping Protestants.   At the time of independence from Great Britain, the thirteen colonies were 98% Protestant, 1% Catholic and 1% “Other,”  including Jews.

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans could not be American citizens.   Again, remember, by this time the Republicans were campaigning for the end of slavery, while the Democrats were in support; this blatantly racist decision was made by a Court that was siding with the Democrats.   Right up until the 1964 Voting Rights Act, Democratic politicians in the South deprived blacks of the vote; while the whites voted for the Democrats as the party that supported the Old (pro-slavery) South.

In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress.   The law was against ethnic Chinese, as even Chinese from British territories were not allowed.   The Act was renewed in 1892.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has self-righteously announced that Canada will take in refugees America doesn’t want. Canada is another country going soft, also wallowing in ignorance of history.   His predecessor, Stephen Harper, apologized in 2006 for the 1923 Act of the Canadian parliament that banned Chinese immigration. Australia had a “White Australia” policy before 1972. Muslim countries routinely discriminate – it’s impossible for whites to settle in their countries and become citizens.   The same is true of most African countries.

As the first mosque was opened in the US in 1929, there were clearly few if any Muslim immigrants before that date.   Non-white immigration was strictly limited before the 1965 Immigration Act, which literally changed the face of America.

It should be remembered that in 1942, a Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, issued Proclamation No. 2537 “requiring aliens from World War II-enemy countries–Italy, Germany and Japan to register with the United States Department of Justice. Registered persons were then issued a Certificate of Identification for Aliens of Enemy Nationality.   A follow-up to the Alien Registration Act of 1940, Proclamation No. 2537 facilitated the beginning of full-scale internment of Japanese Americans the following month.”  (History magazine)

More recently, President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, banned Iranians (Muslims) from entering the US during the 1979-80 hostage crisis.

So, clearly, it is possible for the US president (and even Canadian and Australian governments) to put an end to Islamic immigration, if they want to.

And what about Europe?

A Muslim army tried to conquer Europe in the eighth century.   It was defeated in 732 at the gates of Paris, by the grandfather of the future Emperor Charlemagne.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Muslim armies tried to take Vienna, at the heart of Europe.   They were defeated by Catholic armies.

There is no record of Austrians demonstrating to let them in!   That had to wait until 21st century liberalism, where half the population is besotted with ignorance of both history and comparative religion. The Catholics of 1683 knew that Islam was a pagan religion – they were terrified the Muslims might win and take over, ending their way of life.   Not so today’s churches who are more inclined to welcome immigrants and refugees.   Even the pope took in a family or two at the Vatican and has said that the building of walls is unchristian – it was walls in the Middle Ages that kept the pagans out, enabling citizens to stay safe.   It was Roman Catholics who built those walls.

In 1095, Pope Urban II called on the nations of Western Europe to launch a “Crusade” against Muslims who were killing and harassing Christians on pilgrimages to the Holy Land.   He called for Christian forces to retake the Holy Land.   Again, there were no demonstrations in the streets in support of Muslims – everybody knew the horror stories from the Middle East.   It’s true that Christians perpetrated horrendous acts against Muslims during the two centuries of the crusades, illustrating how the two religions cannot exist peacefully side by side.   This is another lesson not taught in today’s public schools!

It’s sad that the issue of immigration from Muslim lands has become a political football.   It would be a lot better if there were bipartisan agreement on the matter, but this is not going to happen. Consequently, the invasion will continue.   The Gatestone Institute revealed this week that Muslim immigrants arriving in Italy are shouting “Allahu Akbar” when they see the coast.   Why else would they be risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean Sea when they could simply walk into a neighboring Muslim country?   They see themselves as part of the Muslim army that is going to conquer Europe and the West.

Unless the Church and a political populist come together to try and save Western civilization!

Could Donald Trump lead the charge?   Or is it more likely that a European figure like Charlemagne will emerge to unite Europe and defeat the Muslims?   The biblical Book of Revelation speaks of a final revival of the Roman Empire (Revelation 17:12-14) that will deal with the Islamic threat from the “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40-43).

Footnote:    I would like to write an eye-witness report from a couple of European countries on the Muslim invasion of the continent. If you can donate frequent flyer miles (60,000) or money to cover expenses, please contact me at rhodesmf@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BREXIT 2 AND MARTIN LUTHER

king-george-bloody-colonists

Next year marks the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany, an act that is considered the start of the Protestant Reformation.   Luther was particularly upset about the sale of indulgences, whereby wealthy members of the Roman Catholic Church could buy a certificate, which would reduce the time they would spend in purgatory, itself an invention of the church.

The revolution that Luther started soon spread to other countries.

Europe has seen a number of revolutions that have spread from nation to nation, leading to significant change.   1989 was one such year when communist governments in Eastern Europe were brought down by the people they claimed to represent.   1918 was another such year, as World War One ended and ancient monarchies were overthrown.   Going back further, in 1848, revolutions took place across Europe as the people demanded more democracy.

This year started another revolution that could spread.   The vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom was a vote against globalization and mutliculturalism and the elites who have forced these upon the people.   A second Brexit may follow in a few days when the US holds its presidential election.   A victory for Donald Trump will be a vote against globalization and multiculturalism; a vote for Mrs. Clinton will be a vote for continuity, for more of the same, led by the same elites that have dominated for five decades.

Like the Church 500 years ago, the Clintons have been selling indulgences.   For a gift of a few million dollars to their own private Foundation, foreign leaders were granted access to Mrs. Clinton, then Secretary of State.   “Government for sale” does not sit well with the American people – she may very well lose the election because of the ensuing scandal.

Donald Trump has his problems, too, particularly with women. He is not winning the female vote due to his reputation as what was once called a “male chauvinist pig.”  He has also made outlandish remarks in the past that have led many to conclude he is not suited to the presidency.

The following letter from our local newspaper sums up the dilemma that many voters face:

“Being a voter this year is kind of like being a condemned man the warden likes so he lets you choose the method of your death.  Donald Trump is a sexist pig, (Bill Clinton is, too) and he has the maturity of a 10 year old.  Hillary C is a pathological liar who is probably already selling ambassador jobs for a “contribution” to the Clinton Foundation.  If characters were gun powder, these two combined would not have enough to kill a fly.  Someone will smile and be declared the winner Nov 8.  We’re all losers with these two wretched candidates.”  (Lansing State Journal)

In four days it should all be over.

Mr. Trump has claimed the voting is rigged.   While there may or may not be problems in the voting booth (both before and after), voting is rigged in at least two ways.

Firstly, media bias, which manifests itself in many ways.   The mass media in the United States is overwhelmingly supportive of the Democrats.   Fox News is the only television network that is different and it’s only available on cable. One example of bias was just this morning. Fox showed footage of illegal immigrants crossing into the US across the southern border, in a last-minute attempt to get in before Trump builds his wall; such footage would sway many Americans to vote for Trump so, naturally, nothing was said or shown on the main TV networks.  If the electorate knew that 1,000 people a day are now crossing illegally into their country, they would be alarmed.

Another example of bias is from the New York Times, which did not even mention Hillary Clinton’s problems with her emails until it had to.   I’ve been reading the Sunday editions of the Times for a few weeks and it is clearly one-sided.

Secondly, there is another way in which the election is rigged.   Immigration.

It was the Democrats who brought in the 1965 Immigration Act which has flooded the country with people from developing countries, most of whom support big government programs and vote for the Democrats at every election.   Every four years when a presidential election is held, the percentage of whites is down a further 1% — it is the white population that has dominated America in the past.   They generally support traditional free enterprise and small government.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal aliens in the country. Mrs. Clinton favors a fast-track to citizenship, enabling them all to vote for her party; Mr. Trump wants them to return home and then apply for legal entry.

Elections are always difficult to predict, but I will say one thing for the benefit of those who live outside of the United States – there are more Trump signs on front lawns than there are Clinton signs.   There may be a lot of silent Trump supporters, people even who have never voted and are therefore not receiving calls from pollsters.

One final thought: whoever loses only has himself or herself to blame.   A biblical principle that keeps coming to mind is found in Numbers 32:23:   “be sure your sins will find you out.”   Whoever loses will be losing partly because of personal indiscretions.

This brings us back to the Roman Church and Martin Luther.   At the time, the corruption in the Church was pervasive – from the top down, popes, cardinals, archbishops and priests all had their fingers in the pie.   The result was rebellion on the part of the people.   The descendants of those same people today have the same attitude toward the elites that have grown fat at their expense.

This is what Brexit was all about.   It’s also the biggest issue in the US election.

But Brexit was not the end of the matter. In the United Kingdom, the elites are putting up a fight to reverse Brexit.  A decision of the High Court on Wednesday ruled that parliament must vote on the issue before the country can apply to leave the EU.  As two-thirds of the members of parliament are against Brexit, this is a definite blow to a people who want freedom from globalization and multiculturalism.   Theresa May, the UK’s prime minister, will appeal the decision to the country’s Supreme Court.   Mrs. May herself was against Brexit when the vote was taken in June, but now stresses that the will of the people must be upheld.

The globalist elites will resist change just as the kings did decades ago.   A Trump victory will be challenged in every way – if elected, he will not find it easy to “drain the swamp”!

At stake is America’s leadership of the western world.   Sixty years ago this week Britain and France invaded Egypt in an attempt to get back control of the Suez Canal, which they had built and owned.   US intervention ended the conflict.  It was, effectively, the end of the British and French Empires.   It’s a sobering reminder to Americans that just one error of judgment, particularly in the Middle East, can bring down the American Empire.   Don’t think it cannot happen to the United States.

EU AND UK MOVE ON, SEPARATELY

SCAN0162

———————————————————-

Brexit seems to have done the opposite to what the “experts” predicted.   The United Kingdom is booming as the European Union recedes further behind in the rear-view mirror.   All the negative predictions have turned out to be wrong.

Nigel Farage, who led the Brexit campaign, was interviewed yesterday on “Varney and Company” (Fox Business News).   Stuart Varney, a 68-year-old Brit who moved to the US forty years ago, supported Brexit.   He asked Mr. Farage about the polls leading up to Brexit.   The last poll before the vote, was published the morning of the actual vote and showed a 10% lead for the “Remain” campaign. Mr. Farage claimed the hidden purpose of the poll was to discourage people from voting “Leave” – they were being told they were going to lose so what was the point of voting?

The vote was against globalization and multiculturalism.   The United  Kingdom was the first country to reject the 50-year-rush toward these twin goals.   Mr. Farage went on to encourage those in America who are against both to be sure to vote in November and not to vote for Mrs. Clinton, who is a part of the problem, not the solution.

Meanwhile, the German economy has suffered as a result of Brexit. German car companies sell 20% of their cars in the UK; other companies also rely on the British market.

Without Britain, the EU is no longer hindered in its plans to create a European Army and other military forces.   The Poles expressed the opinion that the British were holding back developments in this area.   Now the EU can move ahead.   EU countries meet in Warsaw next week to discuss further military cooperation.   Hungary and the Czech Republic today both backed the formation of an EU military force.   Hungary has been very vocal about the dangers presented by the recent surge of immigrants and resultant Islamic extremism.

On Monday, August 22nd, the leaders of Germany, Italy and France, the three biggest EU economies now that Britain is leaving, met off the Italian coast, to discuss the future of the organization. Undaunted, they plan to move ahead in forming “an ever closer union,” the commitment made when the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957.   There will be no turning back.

What is likely to emerge is a more united Europe led by Germany.

The EU is faced with the greatest crisis of its existence with radical Islamic terrorism.   Berlin is telling its citizens they need to stock up on food and water, to have at least ten days supply in the event of an emergency.   The government is also talking of re-introducing conscription, which was abolished a few years ago.

————————————————————————–

Stuart Varney observed on his program that when he first came to America 40 years ago, the Republicans were the wealthy party that represented big business; while the Democrats fought for the little guy.   Now, it’s the other way around.   Mrs. Clinton is employing over 700 full-time personnel in her campaign, while the Republicans have 87.   Wealthy donors donate to the Democrats while Donald Trump gets $10 here and $50 there.   A fund-raiser barbecue at the home of retired basketball player Magic Johnson raised $1.3 million for Mrs. Clinton; another one in Hollywood brought in a lot more, with an admission price of $200,000 per ticket.   This means that Mrs. Clinton can show more than ten times the number of political ads on TV giving her a distinct advantage.

With all the accusations made by the Democrats that Republicans are “racist,” it’s clear the former are ignorant of history.   The Republican Party was formed specifically to end slavery; the Democrats were the pro-slavery party.   As such, for decades whites in the Deep South voted for the Democratic Party and blacks for the Republicans.

Race continues to be a factor in elections – at every presidential election, once every four years, the white population has declined by a further 1%, giving the Democrats a distinct advantage.   This is because of Senator Edward Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, which has encouraged immigration from Third World countries.   An estimated 70% of immigrants vote for the Democrats.   No wonder they want to keep the borders open and fast-track illegal aliens into citizenship.   They’re on to a good thing.

————————————————————————–

A MORE MODERATE ISLAMIC VOICE

The Muslim King of Morocco is clearly more enlightened than some leaders in the Middle East.   Note the following address on television following terrorist incidents in Europe perpetrated by people of North African origin:

In an address directed toward Moroccans living abroad, Mohammed VI, the King of Morocco, said that they should “always be among the first to defend peace, harmony, and coexistence in their countries of residence.” Calling the killing of a priest in his church “unforgivable,” Mohammed VI said that the Jihadists are “led by ignorance” and are “destined to dwell in Hell for all eternity.” “Can anyone of sound mind believe that the reward for Jihad could be some virgins in Paradise?” he asked in the address, which was broadcast by Morocco’s Channel 1 on August 20.   (MEMRI)

Western countries continue to compromise with Islam.   The Canadian government is to allow the wearing of the hijab by Muslim Mounties, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.   In France, the government announced a ban on Muslim beachwear, but a French court has decided otherwise.

————————————————————————–

ON IMMIGRATION INTO AMERICA

“We turn away astrophysicists in order to make room for illiterate Afghan peasants who will drop out of high school to man coffee carts until deciding to engage in jihad against us.” (Ann Coulter, “Adios, America!”)

————————————————————————–

CLINTON FOUNDATION

New emails uncovered via Freedom of Information Act lawsuits “suggest why the Clinton Foundation could be so attractive to the rich and mighty,” writes our columnist William McGurn.  “When a donor had a problem that required the secretary of state’s attention” – or when a meeting was denied through “normal” channels – there was the foundation to contact Hillary Clinton’s top staffers at the State Department.   In too many cases, government doors then swung open for the donors.  (WSJ  8/22)

Also of interest:   Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s top adviser and close personal friend, an Iranian Muslim, turns out to have edited a radical Islamic publication before becoming the most influential Muslim in the country.   She is 40 years old and is the Vice-Chairperson for the Clinton election campaign.

————————————————————————–

CLUELESS

The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, tried to discourage Muslim Australian youth from joining ISIS.   It meant “almost certain death” said the PM.

Isn’t that the idea?!?   They won’t get those 72 virgins in paradise without dying first . . . !

————————————————————————–

INTERESTING STATISTIC

One third of British policemen are now armed.   Last year, they collectively fired a grand total of seven rounds.

I will not comment further.

 

VICTORY OVER ISIS WILL NOT END ISLAMIC TERRORISM

Daniel Craig Spectre

In the latest James Bond movie, “Spectre,” an evil organization is trying to take over the world, but 007, once again, stops them.

It’s the most successful movie at the box office right now.

Millions around the world have already seen it; millions more will in the weeks to come.

The question is:  why do people believe this is credible, but won’t accept an evil organization really IS trying to take over the world and, at present, well on the way to success?

I’m referring, of course, to ISIS. Also Al-Qaeda, which, through an affiliate in Mali, has staged the latest terrorist attack today in Bamako.   An ISIS affiliate, Boko Haram, attacked a market yesterday in northern Nigeria, killing almost 50. These terrorist attacks are now a daily occurrence.   It seems likely that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are competing with each other, to see who can kill the most people.  Whoever wins will get the most recruits – people will want to join the one who is winning!

Both organizations believe that Islam shall rule the world.   They also have an eschatological interpretation of their religion, which is telling them to stir things up at this time, which they, like many Christians, believe is the end-time.   (Be sure to read Graeme Wood’s article “What ISIS really wants” in the March 2015 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.   It’s available online.   I quoted from it in a blogpost at the time.)

It’s not just religious people who write articles warning about ISIS and others.   Niall Ferguson, my favorite historian and a non-believer, wrote a very good article this week for The Australian newspaper, likening what is happening now to the fall of Rome.   Commenting on the Paris attacks, he observed:  “this is exactly how civilizations fall.”   (“Paris attacks:   fall of Rome should be a warning to the West.” The Australian, November 16th).  Ferguson had this to say about Muslims in Europe:

It is doubtless true to say that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe are not violent.   But it is also true the majority hold views not easily reconciled with the principles of our liberal democracies, including our novel notions about sexual equality and tolerance not merely of religious diversity but of nearly all sexual proclivities.   And it is thus remarkably easy for a violent minority to acquire their weapons and prepare their assaults on civilization within these avowedly peace-loving ­communities.

Conservative columnist Mark Steyn wrote:

“Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described (last week’s) events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.”

“But that’s not true, is it?   He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France.   What it is is an attack on  the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity.”   And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity.   They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.

“And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries.   Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats.   So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.”   (“The Barbarians are inside – and there are no gates!”   Steynonline, Friday November 13th)

Nothing has yet been done to change immigration rules.   President Obama was on the defensive when the issue came up – he said it was un-American to discriminate against Muslims, though that’s exactly what was done from the founding of James Town (in 1607) until the 1965 Immigration Act that was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy.   In the 1952 Immigration bill that became law, members of any organization that called for the overthrow of the US government and constitution, was forbidden to enter the country.   At the time, communism was the threat.   Today, it’s radical Islam. Both the religion and the Koran threaten the US.

Islam means “submission” – all members of the faith must submit to Allah and Sharia Law.   According to a recent poll of Muslims in the United States, 51% of American Muslims believe Sharia should be the law of the US.   In the same poll, 25% felt it justified to use violence against Americans.   In other words, their faith comes before America, intolerance before tolerance.

It was clear from what the President said that his agenda is to get as many into the country as possible, while bending over backwards to stay out of any conflict with radical Islam.   Obama is not the only one.   President Hollande of France declared war on ISIS after last week’s terror attacks, but his government remains committed to taking in 30,000 more Syrian refugees in the weeks to come.   Multiply that by 5 to get a US equivalent of 150,000.   The US is taking 10,000.

France is interesting.   The country has arguably been more successful assimilating Muslims than any other.   10% of the French population is Muslim, immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa and their offspring.   Only 10% of these Muslims go to the mosque every week.  Muslims seem to be more secularized than in other countries.

But, perhaps that’s the problem.

When a devout Muslim moves to the West, rather than appreciating his newfound freedom, he will see the West as totally degenerate. Whereas Muslims are in submission to Allah, the West is in submission to the god of materialism and the pursuit of licentiousness.   They are two diametrically opposed ways of life.

The surprise is that so few, comparatively speaking, resort to extremism.

Although attitudes are hardening throughout the West and right-wing movements are gaining support, a lot of people are still clueless at the threat from radical Islam.   More than one victim in Paris remarked on how they still believe in the basic goodness of people.   They would do well to heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah who wrote:   “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” (Jeremiah 17:9).   We are likely to see far more evil acts perpetrated by ISIS in the near future.

Which brings us back to James Bond.

We must not confuse real life with movies.   If and when ISIS is defeated, it does not mean the end of violent Islamic extremism. Other organizations will arise that will likewise threaten the peace and security of the West.   Radical Islam is here to stay.   It’s an idea whose time has come!

The final words are from Niall Ferguson, who quotes Bryan Ward-Perkins, who wrote “The Fall of Rome” in 2005:   “The end of civilization came within a single generation.”   The West could fall much quicker than that faced with the serious threat of radical Islam.