Tag Archives: Chicago

COMMON SENSE, WITH TACT

Donald Trump Muslims

After Donald Trump’s call for a temporary halt in allowing Muslims to move to America, there has been a great deal of “moral outrage,” as CNN called it.   Prominent members of the liberal intelligentsia have been appearing on the various news channels.   Accusations of Trump being “un-American” are constantly being yelled out, even though America had no Muslims in its infancy and few until a change in the immigration laws fifty years ago.

Donald Trump has called for a ban on immigration to the United States by Muslims.  TV talk programs seem to have discussed nothing else since his controversial call Monday, which he referred to as “common sense.”

The liberal media, plus almost all politicians of both major parties, have condemned Mr. Trump and called him a “racist” and lots of other bad names.

Methinks they protest too much!   Why are they so determined to see so many Muslims in America?

Let’s consider the facts ……

The US is the leading nation of the western world.   The country has experienced a number of terrorist attacks by Muslims, including San Bernardino, Boston, Chattanooga, Garland, Fort Hood and 9-11.

The number two economy in the western world is Japan, with 130 million people.   Japan has not had a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslims.   Japan has a very strict immigration policy, which does not encourage Muslims to move there.   Could there be a connection?
Mr. Trump lacks tact, a quality he needs and one that needs to be brought into this debate.

I remember a conversation with a member of the diplomatic service in an African country some years ago.   My wife and I were enjoying our visit to his country and I expressed the hope that they would have more tourists, which would boost their economy.   I told him that one thing they could do to help encourage tourism was to abolish the visa requirement for tourists.

He responded that the country had to require a visa, at a cost of $100, before any tourist could visit.   He explained that it was reciprocal. In other words, because the US insisted people from his country must get a visa to enter America, his country had to insist on visas for Americans.

The US requires peoples in many countries to get visas, to screen them before they visit and to weed out those who might visit and stay to look for work.

But my point is that visa requirements are reciprocal.

Can’t we do the same when it comes to immigration?

We should apply the same rules to people wanting to come to the United States, as their countries apply to Americans who go there.

As none of the 57 majority Muslim countries allows Americans to immigrate into their countries, we would effectively achieve the ban on Muslims Mr. Trump wants, but do it more tactfully.   The ball would be in their court!

Yes, there are Americans living in Muslim countries.   Some are married to locals in those countries, while some work there on contract, providing skills their economies need; but none have permanent resident status and will never be allowed to apply for citizenship.  Muslim nations know that Muslims and non-Muslims just don’t mix!

Quid pro quo.   Problem solved.   With tact, Mr. Trump!

There was also a lack of tact in the White House when Josh Earnest, White House spokesman, described Mr. Trump’s comments as “fascist,” forgetting that the most famous Democratic president of all, Franklin Roosevelt, interred Japanese, German and Italian Americans during World War II.

Meanwhile, a great deal of ignorance has been exposed in the media on this issue.   A number of news people have told us that Mr. Trump’s suggestion goes against the constitution.   It’s difficult to justify such a statement when there were no Muslims in the country at the time the constitution was written.   It wasn’t until after the Civil War that Muslims first came on the scene and the first mosque was built in Chicago as recently as 1929.

Nihad Awad, Executive Director and Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, likened Mr. Trump’s comments to those of Nazis against the Jews, asking:  “Haven’t we learned anything from history, Mr. Trump?”   This blatant double standard went unquestioned.   It was a perfect opportunity to raise questions about attitudes toward Jews shown in some Muslim countries and during the Holocaust.

On the same day that this dominated the news, TIME magazine announced its choice of “Person of the Year.”   This year’s choice is Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, who opened Germany’s doors to allow in one million migrants this year, the equivalent of the US taking in four million.   The decision has already resulted in negative repercussions that must be borne by the German people.

The question arises – why is the media so determined to see the end of the European races?   At the same time as ridiculing Trump, most news sources are seen praising Frau Merkel for her decision.

Whatever you may think of Mr. Trump’s call to halt Muslim immigration at this time, Americans should be thankful the issue has been raised for one simple reason – any more attacks could easily result in a violent backlash against Muslims by other Americans. The population needs to be thoroughly educated on the religion and its goals toward the United States so that a responsible debate can take place.

 

 

 

 

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.