Tag Archives: African-Americans

TRUMP ON IMMIGRANTS

trump1-061615

Donald Trump has hit a nerve!

What he said was decidedly politically incorrect, but many people clearly feel the same way.   Mr. Trump is now leading the Republican pack in the opinion polls.

His comment on the need to do something about illegal immigrants following the murder of a 32-year-old woman in San Francisco by an illegal who has been deported five times was roundly condemned in the liberal media and by the other candidates.

Hillary Clinton was one of those condemning the comment.   She needs to think more deeply.   She is in favor of granting citizenship to the eleven million illegal aliens in the United States.   At the same time, she is trying to sell herself as the leading candidate to represent the working-man, the very people most threatened by immigrants.

Some immigration is needed.  America’s education system does not produce enough people with the skills to serve the country.   But millions have arrived on these shores who end up at the bottom of society, competing for low wage jobs with the working poor.   This includes many African Americans, another group Mrs. Clinton, a multi-millionaire, likes to think she represents.

The best thing she could do to raise their standard of living, to create jobs and boost incomes, is to advocate curbs on immigration.   If that’s what people want, they would be better dumping Hillary for the Donald.

It’s not just illegals that are the problem.

Five men are dead and others critically injured, leaving a number of children without a father, following shooting incidents in Chattanooga by a legal immigrant from Kuwait.  To put it simply – if this man’s family had not been allowed into the country, five American families would not be going through bereavement right now.   And about a dozen children could still play with Daddy.

The perpetrator of the Chattanooga murders was a Muslim, likely influenced by ISIS, which is calling on supporters to go out and kill men in uniform.

Another Muslim immigrant from Jordan, murdered thirteen Americans in an attack at Fort Hood in November, 2009.

Of course, the biggest attack by Muslim immigrants was on September 11th fourteen years ago when 3,000 were killed.

It’s not just Muslims who do these things.  A young immigrant from South Korea killed 38 Americans, mostly students, at Virginia Tech in 2007.   Again, if he had not been allowed into the country, 38 families could still look forward to their sons and daughters coming home for the holidays.

Of course, it’s not just immigrants that commit murder.   That’s not the point.  A responsibility of government is to do everything possible to guarantee the safety of the people, within the confines of our laws and traditions.  Most people do not want to lose their freedoms to accomplish this.

Our lax immigration laws do not add to our safety.   Rather, they do the opposite, endangering all Americans every single day –we do not know where the next attack is coming from.

It’s widely believed that immigration built this country.   This overlooks the fact that there have been periods in US history when immigration was restricted.   In theory, it still is.  But today’s “restriction” is very generous – well over a million a year, mostly legal immigrants.

Clearly, a national debate is needed on this subject.   This is unlikely to come from any of the presidential candidates, other than Mr. Trump.

Any debate must include a study of just how many murders have been committed by immigrants as well as a study of the economic benefits and losses (losses include the cost of educating immigrant children and providing healthcare to families).

Mr. Trump has been greatly criticized for saying Mexican illegals are “rapists.”   Again, reliable facts and figures are needed here.  The United Kingdom has witnessed recent scandals where Pakistani men, all Muslims, have been grooming young white girls for sex. These sexual grooming gangs have operated in a lot of UK towns, most famously Rochdale and Rotherham, targeting 12-year-olds and above.  Local authorities were afraid to say anything for fear of accusations of “racism.”   Cambridge and Sheffield are two other cities affected by this.

There are differences in cultures.   Mr. Trump’s remark may not be so outrageous after all.   Americans should at least be thankful to him for raising the subject.

Advertisements

FEAR BEHIND CHURCH ATTACK

Photo: EPA ; AP
Photo: EPA ; AP

The killing of nine people in a Charleston church last week and the election result in Denmark seemingly have little in common.   But at the root of both is fear.

The 21-year-old white male who shot dead nine African-Americans wore two badges on his jacket.   They were the Rhodesian flag and the South African flag of the old apartheid regime.   TV reporters were quick to say these flags represented racism and that Dylaan Roof identified with these countries because he, too, is racist.

As usual, there was very little depth shown by reporters.   It’s just not as simple as they made it out to be.

Rhodesia and South Africa were the last two nations on the African continent to be ruled by whites, people of European descent who had colonized Africa in previous generations.   During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the European powers were rapidly dismantling their colonial empires.   The ruling whites of Southern Rhodesia, rather than have black majority rule forced upon them, declared themselves independent of Great Britain, something that had not happened since 1776.

Why did they do this?   Out of fear, fear of what would happen if the whites handed over to the majority African population.

This fear was not unfounded.   They had seen what happened when countries to the north of them got independence.

Tribalism, violent upheavals and economic collapse were quite normal in the years following independence.   In 1961, the whites of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), at the time in a federation with Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, had been instrumental in saving thousands of people from the Congo who had fled the country after Belgium pulled out.   Chaos and confusion were commonplace in Africa at the time. The whites at the southern end of the continent did not want the same fate to befall them.

In neighboring South Africa, apartheid also had fear at its root.   The white minority imposed segregation to protect themselves from violent crime, murder, and rapes, all of which have increased dramatically since the end of apartheid and the introduction of majority rule.   There was a great deal wrong with apartheid, but post-apartheid South Africa also has serious problems with little hope for improvement.

Which brings us to last week’s Danish election.

Scandinavia has been the last bastion of social democracy, with widely admired societies that have inspired leftist parties around the world.

But these days, social democracy in Nordic countries is in crisis.   The defeat of Denmark’s ruling social democrat party, led by Helle Thorning-Schmidt, means that for the first time in seventy years, Sweden is the only Scandinavian country with a social democrat government in power.   Even there, it’s doubtful it will survive long.

Their decline has been accompanied by a surge in support for anti-immigration, eurosceptic parties.   “Should the Danish People’s party — which came second, nearly doubling its support from the previous vote in 2011 — join a centre-right government, three of the four large Nordic countries would have such a group in power (Finland and Norway being the others),” the Financial Times reports on its website.   After decades of rule by parties of the left, this is a dramatic change.

“There is a familiar progression in the way that the DPP, True Finns, Sweden Democrats and Norway’s Progress party have hollowed out the establishment parties.   As with the DPP, they have started by stealing voters from the centre-left — the working class, the elderly — before taking them from the centre-right.

“It’s a worry and it’s a wake-up call,” says Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister.”   (ft.com)

What’s behind the swing to the anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Fear.   The same fear that motivated the whites of Rhodesia and South Africa.   And the same fear that was behind the church shooting in Charleston.   This is not to suggest that the Danes, the Rhodesians or the South Africans would have been in agreement with Dylaan Roof’s actions.   It is simply that there is a commonality here – and that common denominator is fear.

The Danes are afraid of being overwhelmed by people of different cultures, especially Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East.   A significant percentage of people in every European country share the same fear.   They do not want to see their way of life threatened. These fears are not taken seriously by mainstream political parties, so voters are looking elsewhere.

The same fear led to Rhodesians breaking away from Britain.   Their “rebellion” lasted fourteen years, seven of which were spent at war with homegrown terrorists who wanted to take over the country. When the terrorists took over, white fears were realized when their land, jobs and money were all taken by the post-independence government of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power for over 35 years.

In South Africa, twenty years after apartheid, the country’s biggest problems are corruption, violence and life-threatening crime.   The affluent society the whites created is under increasing threat, driven by African demands for more and more at the expense of the white taxpayer.

In America, too, many whites fear for the future as they head rapidly toward minority status.   A recent announcement by the Obama Administration that instructs government agencies to enforce greater “diversity” in affluent neighborhoods will only make matters worse.

I’m writing this while we are headed back to our home on a train.   We had to change trains in Chicago.   While lining up for the second train, a young white lady next to me complained to her friends that “the Mexicans are pushing in ahead of us.”   A minor incident like this can trigger off a racial confrontation.   This time it was avoided.

The mad, multicultural mayhem created by the ruling intellectual elites is increasingly being found wanting throughout the western world.

We should expect more incidents like the one in Charleston and more election results similar to Denmark.   It could be the start of a white backlash against enforced multiculturalism.   Politicians should take note on both sides of the Atlantic.

A century ago, the world was dominated by Europeans and people of European descent.   Since World War II this has changed dramatically.   Today, only a handful of countries are still run by Caucasians; and, based on demographic trends, all of those will have a majority non-white population within the lifetimes of those now living.

When the dominant culture of a country changes, great upheaval can take place.   Rhodesia is the best most recent example of this.

Dylaan Roof, at 21, was not even born when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.   He may have worn the Rhodesian flag but was ignorant of Rhodesia’s realities.   Race relations were generally quite good in Rhodesia.   The “white” army was 82% black.  If Dylaan Roof had shot nine black Africans in Rhodesia, he would have been tried, sentenced and hanged within a few months.   I remember clearly a young white male who killed a black cab driver and was hanged, if I remember correctly, within 90 days of his sentencing.

The world’s media may have judged Rhodesia a racist society.   In the same way, it now judges South Carolina as seriously wanting in this regard.   But there has been an outpouring of love and support from different ethnic groups since the mass shooting in church.   The Governor of the state, Nikki Haley, has called for the old confederate flag to be taken down from the Capitol building in Columbia, the state capital.

Just as the world’s media stirred up feelings against Rhodesia and South Africa, it will do so against South Carolina.

Watching CNN on Monday morning, I was shocked at how much time was devoted to a one-sided discussion on the future of the “Stars and Bars,” the old Confederate flag.

What Dylaan Roof did was inexcusable and should be roundly condemned.   But he was just one man and a young man, at that.   His actions will not inspire the majority to replicate his act.   But the fears he expressed about the direction America is headed should be openly discussed.   The flag is not the issue.

HOLLYWOOD IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TEACHING HISTORY

Patriot

Hollywood is adding to US foreign policy woes at an incredible rate. No less than four current movies are causing upsets in various parts of the world.

“The Interview” has received a lot of attention.   I have not seen it and would have had no interest in seeing it, if North Korea’s paranoid regime hadn’t flipped out over the movie, blaming the US president personally for its showing. (When you’ve grown up in a country where the “Dear Leader” decides everything, it’s not surprising that people think the US president plays the same role in America!)

The movie revolves around a comedic attempt to assassinate the leader of North Korea. Along the way it makes fun of the more comical aspects of the regime.

As the US has never had good relations with North Korea anyway, Pyongyang’s anger can largely be ignored. But other movies are also a problem.

“American Sniper” has been labeled racist by Muslims who see the conflict with ISIS as a continuation of the clash of civilizations between the “Christian” West and the Islamic world. The movie tells the true story of the US military’s greatest sniper, who killed over 200 people during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As all his victims were Muslims, he, therefore, must be a racist. Don’t look for logic – it’s not a strong point with people who grew up in the Middle East.

“Unbroken” is also a problem, this time with the Japanese. Conservatives in the country are upset over the way Japan’s troops are portrayed in the film, which again is a true story, telling the story of Olympic athlete Louis Zamperini’s experience in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp in WWII.   It’s not the first movie to depict the horrors of life in a Japanese POW camp.   They had no respect for prisoners as their own military culture taught that fighting to the death was preferable to surrender.

The truth is the truth. No apologies need be made for “American Sniper” or “Unbroken”, assuming they stuck to the truth.

Even “Exodus” has been quite controversial, thousands of years after the event. My wife and I didn’t like it. Nor did the Egyptians who said it was “inaccurate,” that Jewish slaves did not build the pyramids and that the depiction of ancient Egyptians was not accurate. Although the depiction of the plagues was interesting and imaginative, and Christian Bale played a convincing Moses, the parting of the Red Sea and receiving of the Ten Commandments were much better in the 1956 version, when special effects were more primitive.   Perhaps the downplaying of the commandments reflects changing societal attitudes in the interim decades.

In Egypt, ‘Censors objected to the “intentional gross historical fallacies that offend Egypt and its pharaonic ancient history in yet another attempt to Judaize Egyptian civilization, which confirms the international Zionist fingerprints all over the film,” the statement said.

The ministry said the movie inaccurately depicts ancient Egyptians as “savages” who kill and hang Jews, arguing that hanging did not exist in ancient Egypt. It said the film also presents a “racist” depiction of Jews as a people who mounted an armed rebellion. The ministry said religious scriptures present Jews as weak and oppressed.

The statement also objected to the depiction of God as a child, which also drew criticism in the West.’  (Seattle Times, December 28th)

Hollywood has always had a problem with religion, rarely depicting biblical events with any degree of accuracy. “The Ten Commandments” (1956) was one of the better biblical movies, with considerable input from Josephus.

But Hollywood has also had a serious problem with history. I cannot think of any historical movie made in Hollywood that was 100% accurate. “Braveheart” has been labeled the most historically inaccurate movie ever made, with 87 historical inaccuracies, according to one website. Another Mel Gibson movie, “The Patriot” got the prize for the fourth most inaccurate movie in history. Amongst other things, the movie depicted British soldiers burning down a church with people in it. The film was set during the Revolutionary War.   British soldiers have never burned down a church full of worshippers, never at any time in history. If they did, they would be court-martialed and severely punished. But it made for great entertainment!

Mel Gibson defended these movies by saying, “We are not in the business of teaching history. We are in the business of providing entertainment to make money.” (The quote is a paraphrase heard on NPR many years ago.)

At least he was honest. Perhaps his anti-semitic rantings owe their origin to the same ignorance of history!

Hollywood has always had a problem with history.

Exactly a century ago next month, what is considered the most influential movie in American history, premiered. “The Birth of a Nation” was an anti-black, pro-KKK movie that led to riots in cities across America. The film was set during the Civil War and Reconstruction and blamed African-Americans for the problems that plagued the US during this period. The NAACP tried to get the film banned. The movie was the first motion picture screened at the White House, then occupied by President Woodrow Wilson.

In an age when few people read anything in depth, preferring to spend their time with electronic gadgets, including TV and DVD’s, movies are perceived as fact.   But they rarely are. If you want to know the facts, you have to read and do the research.

The 1960 John Wayne movie “The Alamo” was made with two historical advisers during production. One of them walked off the set saying, “there isn’t one minute of historical accuracy in this film” but it hasn’t stopped people watching it in the last 55 years.

Hollywood has a responsibility to strive for accuracy. It can be done. Good movies can be made while maintaining accuracy. “To Kill a King” is a prime example. This is a British movie about the English Civil War, the execution of the King and the subsequent Republic under Oliver Cromwell. The film was lauded by historians as the most accurate historical movie ever made.

Sadly, it’s hard to track down. Perhaps, after all, people are not interested in facts – they just want to be entertained!

100,000 HAITIANS COMING TO AMERICA

hatians-to-usa

When Senator Edward Kennedy’s immigration bill passed into law almost fifty years ago, he assured Americans that they would not notice any changes in the social fabric of America. At the time, whites constituted almost 90% of the population.

Today, the percentage of whites is down to less than two thirds. If demographic trends continue, Americans with Caucasian ancestry will be a minority by 2034. This year, for the first time, non-whites outnumber whites in school. Former President Bill Clinton warned a predominantly white audience some time ago that this is their future “and you’d better get used to it.”

The Democrats just can’t wait. By executive decree thousands of school children from Guatemala have been granted permission to live in the United States.   And now, 100,000 Haitians are coming to America, again by executive decree.   Keep in mind that the constitution gives Congress the right to decide on naturalization, not the president.

In light of the fact that the melting pot clearly isn’t working with some people, it seems risky to let 100, 000 in from the country that is the greatest failed state in the western hemisphere and where voodoo thrives.   But, putting that aside, one wonders why the Democrats haven’t said something.

They claim to be the party of the working man.   The working people they claim to represent have seen a serious reduction in their standard of living in the last few years. Many are not even working at all. The 5.9% unemployment figure is a farce – that’s the number of people who are actively looking for a job. Many more have given up looking so are no longer counted.

African-Americans are particularly hard hit. And now 100,000 Haitians will join them in the competition for low-paid jobs. In a few years, those children from Guatemala will also be competing for the same jobs.

So, why is President Obama so keen on bringing these people in?

Don’t think it’s humanitarian, because it’s not.

It comes down to two things.

First, the Democrats are looking ahead. By 2020, tens of thousands of the new residents will have citizenship which will enable them to vote – for the Democrats!

And secondly, Senator Kennedy’s 60’s generation and their ideological descendants hate the America they inherited and want to completely destroy it.   African-American writer Shelby Steele wrote about this self-loathing in his book “White Guilt”. Read it – it explains the liberal mindset.

Meanwhile, what we are heading towards is a country more like Brazil or South Africa.   South Africa’s white population lost control of their country twenty years ago. They are now a distinct minority, a minority that has to finance all the social programs successive governments impose upon them.   At the same time, they are faced with a constant struggle to survive rising crime and the breakdown of law and order.

This is America’s future.

Deuteronomy chapter 28 warned the ancient Israelites of the consequences of turning away from God. One of those consequences was that foreigners would rule over them.   When a nation turns away from God, people can’t think straight. Unfortunately, those very people now rule over us and we will have to adapt to the consequences, as President Clinton warned.