Not All Refugees Want to Blow You Up

suicide-bomber-schoolBut enough do that one wonders about the game of frog and scorpion Western leaders are playing. It’s as if virtue signalling to one’s peers is more important than small things such as survival. If these people were hosting these cuckoo’s eggs in their own nests — they are not going to New York or San Francisco — there would be a certain self-sacrificing nobility in it, but as we just noted, they are not, they are sending them to Manchester, NH or Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Indeed, the number 1 destination for islamist refugees and their embedded terrorist fraction is Texas, thanks to a Federal desire for disruption and the efforts of nihilistic “non-profits.”)

Consider Vox Day’s Three Laws of SJWotics from SJWs Always LieWhatever you think of Day, the book is a superior framework for understanding the Social Justice Warrior tactics of frame-and-shame shut-uppery that are in the forefront of modern discourse. The Three Laws are:

  1. SJWs always lie
  2. SJWs always double down
  3. SJWs always project.

And let’s add to that, the Law of Refugees from SFQC:

  • Experience teaches us that one in ten of refugees coming from an enemy or denied area is either working directly for, or at least reporting intelligence information to, the enemy.

We expected, if these laws are truly laws, for the social-justice obsessed refugee savers to respond to the Paris massacre as follows:

  1. To assert that the refugees are no threat in the future, and indeed, have never been a threat in the past.
  2. To insist on even more refugees.
  3. To suggest that those who would exclude terrorists, not those who welcome them, are a threat to the institutions of the country;

And those things all have happened.

We would further expect:

  • To see more terrorist attacks committed by refugees.

The last, only time will tell, but the first three reactions can already be seen, adding a data point to the data set supporting Day’s theses.

We’re using a bad definition of refugees here

The usual usage of the word refugee suggests a temporarily displaced person longing to return home once the natural disaster or war has abated. No one seriously thinks these are that kind of refugee. These people are looking for permanent resettlement — and some non-zero subset of them are expecting to get permanent resettlement, on perpetual welfare. They are not looking for traditional resettlement, like, for example, the Free Poles that remained in Canada and Britain after World War II rather than return to their Russian-enslaved homeland in 1945. Those people ultimately became the parents of fully-assimilated Canadians and Britons, for whom the Old Country and its ways are little more than an ethnic surname and perhaps some ancestral comfort-food recipes.

Our new wave don’t see themselves going back to their third world hellholes. Yet they don’t feel at all grateful for resettlement — egged on by Western “inequality” preachers, they feel entitled. 

The most probable outcome of these camps or nests of hostile moslems and Arabs in our nation is to see permanent, hard-shelled cysts of unassimilated foreigners embedded in our society.

1. The Lie: “The Refugees Pose No Threat”

Yes, they’re already saying that. Want examples? Barack Obama, the President. David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary. Hillary Clinton, the Heiress Apparent. Nancy Pelosi, from San Francisco, which is promised zero of the wave (Pelosi’s speech at the link also credits the French government for sending the revolutionary Lafayette to America. No, Louis XVI did not send him). Let’s not just pick on the Democrats. Here’s Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. And why stick to politicians? For the Brookings Institution, armchair expert Dan Byman sneered days before the Paris attack that “ISIS Doesn’t work that way.” That was, of course, before they “worked that way” the living crap out of Paris, but don’t expect a change in position from Byman (he’ll follow the Third Law).

And yeah, we even have statements that they have never done it, based on the fact that only three of the ISIL attackers in Paris have been positively ID’d as refugees so far. And only two of the Boston Marathon bombers.

We even had the Associated Press run a report that one of the firearms in the Paris attacks came from the United States. (It didn’t. The reporter made it up. That’s what they do).

Indeed. Remember Flashbang and Speedbump? The two “refugees” who absorbed millions in welfare and then committed mass murder with TATP-filled pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon?

Another specious claim we hear is that the US has always welcomed refugees. You know, like this kid:

Elian Gonzalez Raid

OK, maybe he’s not a good example, illustrating as he does that (1) for some Americans, the Cuban government is more beloved than our own, and (2) most Federal Agents will do literally anything if given an order. Look at the guy in the picture. Would he put Jews on cattle cars or push them into gas chambers? Would he shoot Polish officers in the back of the head? You can see at a glance that he would. The character and humanity has been trained out of him, and anything that can be rationalized, he would do.

So, if Elián González is a bad example, how about this one:

Romeike Family

These unwanted refugees fled an otherwise friendly but functionally state-atheistic government that is so opposed to their homeschooling, that the parents will be stripped of their children on arrival back “home”. They have been ordered deported, but the deportation order has been stayed pending further legal proceedings (and Congressional intervention).

Yay! More room for future Flashbangs and Speedbumps.

2. The Double Down: Even More Refugees

After seeing what an open door to unassimilable jihadi refugees gets you, President of France François Hollande closed French borders. For a couple of days. Then he announced he would take 30,000 more refugees, ergo, 3,000 more terrortists. (What does this wright, in due course? President Le Pen, for one).

Im the article linked above, David Miliband says the US must accept 100,000 Syrians a year.

And he doubles down, suggesting that the US reduce its minimal (and, frankly, ineffective, but that would be another post)  screening of the “refugees” for terrorists, because

the current process is needlessly slow.

So the US should…

…eliminate unnecessary time lags and get desperate refugees to safety quicker…

Yeah, Dave. All our trains and planes are not gonna bomb themselves, damn it. We need the 10,000+ terrorists in that bunch, stat!

Miliband suggests we should trust the UN, which

… identifies the families most in need…. screens each family, painstakingly documents their family composition and history of flight from Syria, then refers those who best qualify for the U.S. resettlement program on to the federal government.

That’s the same UN that stored rocket launchers for Hamas? The same UN that prints grade school textbooks for Palestinian “refugees” in which they learn math by counting grenades and RPGs, and word problems about how-many-Jews-has-Abdul-got-to-kill? That UN?

The same UN that sent a known foreign intelligence agent to collect against our base camp in Afghanistan? The UN that’s increasingly an arm of the Islamic Conference? The UN that has outlived its usefulness by decades? That UN?

The UN has been in the pocket of Arab and Islamic terrorists for fifty years, and no one with more than single digits of firing synapses should be willing to trust them to walk the dog, let alone sponsor terrorists into the USA. Frankly, UN sponsorship should be viewed with the deepest suspicion in the light of the wannabe world government’s rocky history with terrorism.

And Miliband goes on to make the false equivalency argument: the US resettled 320,000 Vietnamese in two years, where’s our appetite for Islamic terrorists in similar numbers? This is specious. The Vietnamese were the men who fought alongside ours, and their families, who fled their country under credible threat of death.  If any of these so-called refugees were fighters against ISIL, they ought to be back home, fighting against their enemy, who hasn’t won yet. Somebody’s back there fighting, and it’s not the teeming jihadis in the UN Camps, getting their three hots, a cot, and if UN refugee camps run true to form, instruction in marksmanship and bomb-making.

They don’t assimilate at all. In Belgium, the nation’s entire population of 640,000 moslems, who are mostly isolated from Belgian society, has produced 516 known terror jihadists, not counting the ones recently exposed by the Paris attacks. That’s a rate of 1/1260 or 0.079%, a small percentage, but that’s against a whole national population. Against the US moslem population of 6.2 million that the US immigration policy is expected to produce, that means about five thousand terrorists… if they’re as effective as the Paris attackers (exchange ratio 15.75:1), they could murder 77,500 Americans.

3. The Projection: “Wanting a Safe America is Un-American!”

You knew this was not long in coming. The same suspects are arguing that excluding these terrorists who claim to be refugees is somehow un-American, as if nothing is more American than laying your head down on the stump like Isaac and hoping to hell that the guy with the axe is Abraham.

Folks, many, many Americans, hundreds of thousands of us, have been to the sort of paradise produced by Islamism, and have engaged the sort of creatures this fanatical belief produces of humans. And by “engaged,” we don’t mean the Beltway style of having a no-consequences virtue signaling exchange of pleasantries: we mean exchanged fire with.

The nearest thing, in the popular culture, is the zombies of the Walking Dead, except with the ability to cooperate against the living. When someone chooses Islamism, he has chosen Death, for himself and anyone in range of his TATP onesie, and we can see no compelling reason to open the doors for him to try to make of this country the Mohammedan dystopia he has made of his own.

Counterargument: They’re Not All Terrorists

And you know what? We’ll concede that. They’re not all terrorists. They’re not even mostly terrorists, only a small minority, a percentage is (although what we’ve seen from polling and from studies of 2nd-Generation Refugees indicates that the SFQC Estimate was low).

But 10% of the 100,000 Syrians that Miliband and the UN insist we take per annum is 10,000 terrorists a year. If they are as effective as the Paris attackers, who managed an exchange rate of nearly 16 to 1 against French civilians and security forces, that means they will kill more than a million and a half Americans.

Other pressure cooker (and containing bag) remains of the bomb planted by "Refugee" Tamerlan Tsarnayev. FBI.

Pressure cooker (and containing bag) remains of the bomb planted by “Refugee” Tamerlan Tsarnayev. FBI photo.

The US Refugee policy has been extremely imbalanced, also, not accepting Kurdish and (until recently) Yazidi refugees, only Moslems, the most likely terrorists. Christians, who are subject to the same extermination threat as the Yazidis, remain excluded. A curious refugee program, that refuses the oppressed and welcomes their oppressors.

But then again, the US has always had a strain of irrationality in our politics. In 2016, it seems like Tip O’Neill’s aphorism needs to be updated, and all politics is irrational.

Finally, so what if they’re not terrorists? If every single one of them is the purest Enlightenment liberal, their kids revert to the ancestral religion — and the ancestral love of homicide — at the drop of a hat. Accepting these “refugees,” just like starting the various wars that spawned them, and just like fleeing from the consequences of starting those wars, is a voluntary, unforced error. However, unlike the war-starting and bug-out errors we’ve already made, it’s an error that can still be interrupted in the act of commission.

42 thoughts on “Not All Refugees Want to Blow You Up

  1. Larry Kaiser

    Dozens of countries seem to be heading towards the same fate as Syria. We need to totally rethink our approach to refugees from countries in this sort of a death spiral. Allowing people to leave Syria has meant that ISIS has fewer people to fight as it strives to dominate the area.
    If you wish to see the results of that kind of policy all you have to do is look at Cuba. For 50+ years Cubans who were disaffected with communism and Castro had a place to go instead of remaining in Cuba and fighting the government. Our policy of allowing any Cuban who arrived in the US to stay meant that only those who liked living under communism or who were afraid to do anything about it remain.
    Media coverage of the Syrian exodus lingers lovingly on moms with sick children while in the backround 100’s of military age men march by the camera. Some of them may go on to kill and maim people in the West but none of them will pose any threat to Assad or ISIS

  2. JAFO

    I agree with the thrust of your argument. Is this only another example of feckless magical thinking? Cui bono? Would it be in any group’s interest to have a reason to adopt increasingly restrictive and oppressive measures within our borders?

    A minor quibble. If you apply the same analysis used to project American casualties back to France’s historical immigration numbers, how many French casualties should we have seen to date? The devil in the details may be to sort out the relevant portion of immigration to France.

    1. Hognose Post author

      Thoughtful comment. Wonder how France is doing with the original Algerian/Tunisian cohort vs. their kids and more recent migrants.

  3. John M.

    It really scalded my cheese when Obama scolded that those of us who had fears of increasing refugee numbers were afraid of widows and orphans. Obama and his family have zero risk of being harmed by these “refugees.” Only those of us in the unprotected class do.

    A week or so later there was some sort of incident in Paris, if I recall.

    Most days I look forward to the end of the Obama administration. Then I remember that he’s likely to be as much worse than Carter as an ex-president as he has been as a president.

    -John M.

    1. Kirk

      With any luck, he’ll wind up either in prison or martyred, after the rest of the chickens from his administration come home to roost. He’s just a damn figurehead, anyway.

      My guess is that he’s not going to garner the massive post-Presidential emoluments that the Clintons did, and that he’s going to be broke in fairly short order as he tries to maintain the Presidential lifestyle on what he’s going to be paid–Which, in all likelihood, won’t be shit. The man is not well-liked, nor is he respected. His post-Presidential life is not going to be what he imagines, especially after all of his co-conspirators get indicted.

      My prediction? Sasha and Malia better find some way of supporting themselves, because they’re going to wind up supporting their mother while daddy does time, or winds up dead under suspicious circumstances–Especially if Hillary becomes Presidential, herself. That’s a denouement I wouldn’t wish on anyone, to have Hillary at the tiller and be the former President Obama. If the idiot thinks that eventuality is survivable, he’s dumber than he has demonstrated.

      I fully expect that there’s going to be either an indictment or a data dump sometime this summer, if Hillary actually manages to pull off winning the nomination and her health hasn’t visibly collapsed. There’s no way that Obama or his handlers can be that dumb, to let her get at the levers of power. I’m just not seeing it, at all–You’re going to have to burn the Democratic Party to the ground to get the people who took it over with Barry back in 2008 out of there, and Hillary won’t ever get a chance to make use of her various “lists”. That’s my read, anyway. I don’t know what they’re going to do when/if she gets the nomination, but I’m gonna go out on limb and suggest it won’t be pretty.

      1. Leslie Bates

        Back in July someone was passing out the following flyer in downtown Minneapolis:

        A Request

        The very first act that every individual performs upon enlisting in the Armed Forces of the United States is promise to uphold and defend The Constitution.

        For the Army the oath of enlistment was this:

        I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

        All of us who served in the Armed Forces made this promise to the nation.

        The time has come for us who served to keep the promise.

        In 2008 it was clear to every rational observer that Barrack Obama was absolutely unfit to hold any public office. It was clear that he possessed no valid understanding of human life and of the government that protects it. It was very clear that he had been indoctrinated in the falsehoods of Marxism and was an adherent of the anti-human doctrine of Environmentalism. And finally in office he has opened the way to the nuclear arming of the Islamic dictatorship in Iran.

        As President Barack Obama has acted as an adversary to the nation and a friend to our enemies and to Humanity as a whole. There is no question that he is absolutely unfit to occupy the office of President and must be removed.

        Although Congress has the authority to remove a President through the process of impeachment it will not happen. The Republican Party, which actually represents the People of The United States, lacks the votes and the fortitude to carry out this task. And the other party is simply too depraved to do it.

        There is no question at this point that the Armed Forces must step up and remove Obama from office. We need a military coup–right now.

        Please copy and pass along.

      2. John M.

        Even if Obama isn’t terribly bright, he has some smart people around him, and many of those people understand how the Clintons operate. As sure as the sun came up this morning, Obama has some dirt on Hillary and a way to get it out there if he dies an untimely death. And Hillary knows this.

        -John M.

        1. Kirk

          Like I said, he’s a figurehead. When they no longer need him, the protection is going to evaporate, along with the favors and adulation. I fully expect, at a minimum, that in five-ten years, we’re going to be seeing articles talking about how racist it is that Obama can’t get all the same sweetheart deals the Clintons and other past presidents got.

          Seriously–Do you think anyone is going to be paying a few hundred grand per speech, for his drivel?

          I think the post-Presidency Obama is going to be a very sad, very pitiful man–Especially if everything catches up to us the way I think it will. He’s been used, since the beginning, and they’re just going to discard him like yesterday’s trash. Watch.

          1. John M.

            I like your scenario better than mine. I’m just not sure I believe it yet. I mean, Jimmy Carter has been scolding us since ’80. Maybe I’m just starting to develop a twitch after almost 8 years.

            -John M.

          2. Kirk

            John, bear in mind that Carter was smart enough to sell his ass to the Saudis, and gave good value for the money.

            Obama? LOL… Bill Ayers? The cabal of left-wing idiots and George Soros? He’s toast, as soon as they don’t need him anymore. And, what’s most magnificent? He’s not even smart enough to see it coming. He and his wife are going to discarded like last year’s Christmas tree, and they’re both going to wind up wondering where all their “friends” went.

            It’s gonna be Shakespearean, in the magnitude. If it isn’t, well… I’ll buy you a cup of coffee in twenty years. If I’m still here, and there’s still coffee to be had, as we roam the wastelands in our assless chaps, wondering where Mad Max went with everything…

  4. redc1c4

    Three passengers at the Great Falls, Montana, International airport are awaiting their flight.

    One is a Native American who is traveling with a friend who is a ranch hand. The Native American and the Cowboy are on their way to Billings for a Stock Show.

    The third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived in the U.S. and here on a Student Visa. He’s on his way to study engineering at Montana Tech.

    To pass the time they strike up a conversation on recent events, and the discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Since its recently been the anniversary of 9-11, the conversation moves over to what happened that day.

    Soon the Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout radical Muslim, and yes, he believes Muslims are justified in murdering everyone who is not Muslim.

    The Native American and the Cowboy look at each other with a combination of disbelief and a desire to string him up. The conversation falls into an uneasy lull.

    The Native American is a former Marine and Veteran of the Iraq War. He’d obviously like to teach the Muslim student a lesson. His cowpoke friend leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face.

    The wind outside blows and blows and the old windsock flaps but no plane comes.

    Finally, the Native American has an idea and clears his throat before softly saying, “Once, my people were many, now we are few.”

    The radical Muslim raises an eyebrow and leans forward, “Once my people were few,” he sneers, “and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?”

    The Cowboy shifts the toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson, he says, “That’s ’cause we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet boy. But it’s a com’n boy, you can bet on that!”

    1. Kirk

      It’s a good story, but I ain’t that sanguine about the whole thing working out the way it outlines.

      Couple of things militate against it: One, the majority of Americans are so ennervated now by things like the feminist movement that they flatly just can’t be arsed to do anything about the light coming down the track at them. Way, way too many of our young men are disconnected from society, in that they’re not forming functional families or taking up responsible positions in it. And, why? Because they see what they get out of it all, which is nothing they want. Better to stay a feckless bachelor, playing at life, and not doing anything productive. Western society is fundamentally failing in the essential task of taking these young men and productively breaking them to the yoke, which means that every generation of productive human being is getting smaller and smaller, until we’re going to find that all demographic groups resemble inner-city blacks in terms of familial and social dysfunction.

      I think an awful lot of this has to do with feminism, and the anti-Christian movement in the intellectual sphere that’s been going on since before WWI. The self-entitled feminists are basically a bunch of women who were agitating for a good, solid beat down, and when the men in the West didn’t give it to them, and actually, horrors, gave them what they were asking for, they immediately shifted from rage to contempt–And, now, they’re seeking the ass-beating and place-putting that they always really wanted from mysogynistic Arabs and other Muslims, because they really, really don’t want the responsibilities of being “equal” to men in Western culture.

      It’s also tied up with a bunch of Leftist theory, which has been saying the West is corrupt for nearly a century, and now that they’ve grasped the levers of power, they’ve made it true. So, now that it’s true, what else is there for them to do but turn the whole thing over to the Other? And, what better Other than the Muslims?

      How else do you explain women like Merkel, or the ones in Sweden and Norway, who are pissing away their countries to imported Arab males, while getting no resistance whatsoever from the “men” in their countries that they’re consciously supplanting?

      What we’re going to get is a shit-load of converts to Islam, both male and female, as the indigenous population recognizes that there’s no point to being a man under the current regime. A lot of women find the traditional roles offered under Islam to be more comfortable, and that’s what they are going for. Christianity is sitting on its ass, and enabling a lot of this bullshit to happen, which is why all these churches that have gone along with the leftist/feminist program are going empty. The answers they offer, and the grand bargain between the sexes they espouse, plainly do not work. You see that played out in family courts around the world, and frankly, more and more men are simply opting the hell out. Give those men the choice between a lifetime of penury and zero fulfillment, vs. being a lord of creation, owner of multiple sex slaves…? Yeah, you ain’t seen shit, yet: Wait until this wagon really gets rolling. You wonder why Islam was so successful, when it is objectively one of the most BS religions out there? This is why: Personal wish-fulfillment for a lot of men. Hell, Islam even welcomes pedophiles, and lauds them for following Mohammed’s teachings–The 9 year-old he made his wife is well-remembered, and an exemplar amongst Muslim women.

      I think that what we’re getting here is a real-world lesson in why traditional societies kept women out of public life and politics, with rare exceptions. There’s got to be a reason that so few matriarchies actually exist, and for why they’re not very successful, in the sense of longevity and power projection where they do exist. Female drives, coupled with untrammeled political power, seem to lead to inevitable general social disaster. Women want exogamy and exotic, macho partners–While simultaneously driving their own kind of male into the ground. You only have to witness the panty-wetting going on around the “exotic” third-world male in most venues where the educated white women hang out to realize there’s something fundamental going on, and it’s not to the benefit of our own culture or society. Especially after you observe that these women, who have disdainfully rejected multiple males from their own culture as being “unacceptably” masculine, gravitate towards men who abuse them in multiple ways that they’d be calling the police over, were they to be subjected to it by a white male.

      I think what we’re seeing here, to a sad degree, is illustrative of what a huge error it was to grant the franchise unencumbered by any equal amount of responsibility to women in general. Ever since, we’ve been electing our politicians because they look good, and because they kowtow to the women’s vote. Ever go back and look at how penurious Congress used to be, and wonder what happened? I did, and I went and looked: All that crap started to change about the time the women’s vote came in, and while things weren’t perfect before, it got immeasurably worse after. I have, looking at Merkel, et. al, developed more than a slight suspicion that the two sets of facts are connected.

      And, of course, I’m going to be termed misogynistic for making these observations and inferences, but the fact remains–We have a problem, and we’re not even willing to discuss it, let alone address it.

      When you have women from our culture virtually volunteering to be put into purdah, and become secondary sex slaves to men from a totally foreign tradition and culture, there’s something worth examining. And, I’ve seen that shit happen, right before me, with a couple of silly bints who majored in “Women’s Studies”. One of them made it back to the US, sans kids, and the other I have no idea what happened to. Their behavior still puzzles the hell out of me, the two of them coming from decent middle-class homes, with indulgent and kind parents who’d catered to their every need.

      1. robroysimmons

        I don’t think so Kirk, and I mean I know my conservative doom and gloom, and I have come to understand the roles of conservatives in saying such and rationalizing the trajectory of life even if everything like you say is true and what you say is true.

        My point is social dominance is like the old tale of the “King’s New Clothes” and today’s conservatives are there to debate the type of cloth they are made of and how it is stitched.

        First the Left will be openly questioned about their supposed moral authority, actually openly questioned. Second a New Right for lack of better terms will begin to take the most important level of conflict the Moral Level. From there the fat rats of the Left and their mindless muscle will be juicy targets of opportunity.

        1. Kirk

          I dunno. I really don’t know the answers, but I do know we are at a moment of crisis. The things going into the creation of that crisis are going to have to be brought out into the open, analyzed, and then dealt with honestly.

          First and foremost, we need to look at the roots of a stable Western society: What are they? My observation is that those roots are found in the family, and in the extended family of acquaintances and friendships surrounding the family. What has happened everywhere that this has been broken down? Disaster.

          The black family crisis situation started out back in the 1960s, and the syndromes it demonstrated are now playing out in other demographic groups. One of the key components of this whole problem is the inability of the current “system” to engage young men, and get them to take a productive part in society. Why is this happening? Why is it spreading?

          We undertook a wholesale reworking of our society, acting as though the condemnation of all these “activists” had a basis in reality. What have we seen, as a result of all this? Is society, as a whole, better off and more satisfying to take part in? Are we seeing better results, people being happier, living longer, healthier lives?

          Nope. For the first time in history, we’re actually seeing a decline in life expectancy for people in demographic groups like rural whites, and a noticeable rise in the suicide rate for those same groups. Why is this?

          I think we have to finally recognize that we’ve been on the wrong path, at the behest of all these various activist groups, for decades. And, sadly, the effects of us being on that path are playing right into the hands of those parties who offer an alternative, among which are the Islamics. The fear that I have is that they’re going to proffer their traditional male role as lord and master of all he surveys to the average nebbish living in his divorced mom’s basement, and he’s going to reach out to grab it with both hands, to live the dream of being a dominant male, with gorgeous, compliant women at his beck and call. Once they figure out how to make that deal, we’re going to be in a lot more trouble than we are, at the moment.

          And, it’s all going to happen because we tore down the institutions of our own, and ripped the roots out of our own culture while doing so. The intellectuals have been anti-Christian for centuries now, all oblivious to the fact that they lived and thrived in a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix and infrastructure. They’ve been nibbling away at the roots, and now the damn trees are falling, all around us, with nothing to replace them.

          And, Islam is waiting in the wings to fill that spiritual vacuum, with all that it offers disenfranchised males. It’s a heady, intoxicating offer, and I think we’re going to see more and more cultural emigrants embracing it as a solution to their existential woes.

          Hopefully, I’m wrong. But, look at the Europeans, for examples of where this is headed: A Norwegian politician says he was a male rape victim, and doesn’t want his rapist prosecuted or thrown out of Norway. Merkel? Speaks for herself, with her actions and words. Other German politicians are right there with her, denouncing their own culture, and praying for to be supplanted. In the UK, there was a conscious intent behind Labour’s opening of the doors to immigrants, in that they wanted a new electorate. None of these things have been put to a vote, because the people doing them know that a clearly and honestly run plebiscite would be disastrous to their cause–Whatever the hell that is, besides committing cultural suicide.

          1. robroysimmons

            Someone will rise up, state the obvious that our current cultural socially dominant rulers are idiots and we will move on in life. You do realize that the people I describe are idiots? And I only ask that because our “conservative intellectual” script writers never seem to mention that fact, but oh but they will quibble the details and then scold people like me anyway.

          2. Quill_&_Blade

            I try to be articulate, but sometimes, one must resort to the vernacular of the younger generation….DUDE THAT WAS AWESOME!
            Now that that’s out of the way I’ll put forth a few thoughts / counter thoughts: Years ago, a guy I knew put forth the same thought; that women’s suffrage and “liberation” were to blame for many of our troubles. I couldn’t refute it, but it was different from my analysis. I’ve contemplated it on occasion, and the idea carries some weight. Thought about it more today, and if it’s true, then it was and is a problem of identity. The country was big on itself in those days. July 4th celebrations were a big deal, and they must have imbibed a few too many Sousa Marches; it went to the head. People should have identified as Christians, but jingoism edged it out. We were the champions of freedom and equality. So equality for women was a shoe-in. These days, women’s equality has become women’s abuse. “Why buy the cow when they’re giving away the milk?”
            Actually, that might not be ‘these days’; it would be a few years back. I’m not sure about this, but I think there are a lot of lonely young women out there. I’ve encountered it myself. I didn’t follow through, it would have been sin. This gal wasn’t the looks challenged gal either. And I’m not Joe stud. Also I read in a Christian periodical that it’s getting difficult for Christian women to find husbands. So I’m thinking that the common denominator is…internet p0rn. So many of the guys have virtual girlfriends that they’re not as interested in the real thing.
            What you said about avoiding the responsibilities (liabilities) is true, but I’m wondering if a different religion would have much sway. It’s still adjusting to living with someone 24 / 7, raising children, and paying for it all. Hey, virtual babe is easier. I could be wrong.
            As far as the Christian church sitting on its ass; well, sort of. Confused disarray is more like it. The 1990’s and early 2000’s were a time of serious Christian activism. Recall Francis Schaeffer, Chuck Colson, Jim Dobson, and a lot of others trying to legally stop the encroachment of the progressive agenda. An example is DOMA. Carefully crafted so it wouldn’t be snared by technicalities. It died as soon as the wretch Eric Holder refused to enforce it. What’s left for the Church to do? We’re in a worse situation than many realize. If they’re thinking about armed conflict, they’re probably like everyone else; wondering what the trip point is, when is a spark going to hit the tinderbox?
            From what I’ve seen people at this blog are careful not to criticize others’ beliefs; and that looks to include not espousing too much on one’s own religious beliefs. But when I see people leaving a huge factor out of their analyses, I’m compelled to say something. My testimony: I was raised in the anti-God public school system. Years later, I was given a condensed version of a lecture at UC Davis whereby creation was compared to Darwin’s ideas. It was the beginning of my pilgrimage, which continued into more research. I don’t want to start a 500 reply, 5 day long debate, but I could never go back to atheism and be honest with myself.
            So why bring this up here? It’s like I said, the huge factor. Most political incidents are the effects of spiritual things. Some of the founding fathers were Deists, who thought that yes, God created the heavens and the earth, but like a fine watch, he wound it up, sat it on the table, and walked away. I vehemently disagree. Some examples of the spiritual war being manifest in our times:
            __I don’t consider it coincidence that when we mandated schools nationwide teach children that they are advanced animals who can’t talk to God, or learn His ways; the country immediately changed for the worse. Sure, maybe the seeds were planted decades prior, but that looks to be when His restraint was removed.
            __The initial post, and the replies are great, but guess what? The problem with them is that they’re…rational. As you said on the other thread, and again…DUDE THAT WAS AWESOME!…sometimes you need to go meta. This is one of those times. The meta being the spiritual conflict, we do have an adversary. He’s called “The Father of Lies”. As such, he has a disdain for truth, if it gets in his way. Part of dumbing down education is to make the agenda important, while quietly showing truth to the door.
            So we have generations that can’t be convinced of -WHY- something’s really wrong; and that we need to get back to point X. This generation doesn’t know the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, the difference between Stalin and Hitler, and have NO IDEA who Idi Amin was. So they have a very limited idea of what is evil, and buddy, if you say that we need to go back to a time when things weren’t so equal, oh -shoot- they will freak, and, the first casualty is rationality.
            I don’t advocate complacency, or apathy, but that my politics vs their politics is -maybe- the brake pedal, it’s not the steering wheel.

          3. Kirk

            @ Quill&Blade

            Re-reading what I wrote, I think I came off a little more misogynistic than I meant to. The problem isn’t necessarily women voting, or entering the work force, or even joining the military. The real problem is how it was done, and the lack of comprehension that we were necessarily changing a bunch of other stuff at the same time, in order to make those things work.

            Here’s the issue with women voting, that I see: First off, the notion that women didn’t have a say in what went on, politically, before they got the vote? That’s basically so much bullshit, because we all know well and good the traditional “influence” brought to bear by women, through persuasion and what could be outright blackmail of all sorts, that had vast influence at second hand through their husbands and sons.

            Now, had that influence been abandoned by women, once they got the vote? OK, things would have been more equal. But, here’s the catch: The ladies didn’t let up on that crap, so now the women’s issues have twice the vote–Her’s, and the pussy-whipped male in her life. Granted, not every woman or every man is like that, but enough are to radically shift the political base in this country. I’ve observed this stuff in my personal life, and it wasn’t until a few years ago that the effects of this began to dawn on me. The old saw about “half the money, and all the pussy…”? Yeah. She’s got half the votes, and a lock on dragging the other half along with her. Even if we only have five percent of the male population that’s prone to being “influenced”, that’s still enough to make the majority vote go the way the women want it.

            I’ll grant that women aren’t a monolith, but I will submit that the fact that the political system is now slanted towards their sensibilities is a large part of how we got to today’s kind of screwed up.

            It’s just a fact of life, along with all the other crap we did, and that fundamentally changed the social structure and the compact we had going here in the US. I’m not sure we can go back, but I’d damn sure suggest that we can certainly change a few things to fix some of the issues we created with all this brilliant “change”. Or, someone will change it for us, after we’re gone.

            What I find really amusing, in a macabre sort of way, is that there are a bunch of those “unhappy young women” who are embracing the traditional roles offered to them under Islam, and converting. This, I think, should be telling us something.

      2. Miles

        Kirk, the same ideas that Americans were degenerate, self absorbed wimps, interested only in a life of ease, dissolute pleasure and easily dissuaded from action, were in the minds of former adversaries. And maybe we actually were that way. Much to their bitter surprise, we rose to the occasion and turned their worlds into heaps of ruins. I may think more of American fortitude than others might today because I think the “American Spirit” isn’t so easily erased.

        1. Kirk

          The thing you need to remember is that, eventually, Cassandra is going to be right.

          Also, that the only reason that those past doomsayers weren’t proven wrong is that there were a bunch of things they got wrong, and that their warnings were listened to.

          Right now? Yeah, sure… Is anyone actually doing anything about fixing the corruption in government? Nope–We’re getting ready to run one of the worst, most corrupt figures in the history of the nation as a full-blown Presidential candidate. And, then, there’s Hillary…

          Rome eventually fell, and the various dynasties in Imperial Chinese history eventually lost the Mandate of Heaven. It can, and I fear, is, happening to us.

  5. morokko

    To me, the recent wave of refugees/settlers is just a tool that serves purpose of many sides, except the society in which they will be planted. For some actors it is just a convenient way of expelling unwanted ethnic and religious elements. For others – means to gain more supporters and sow disaffection in opposing states. For the politicians and oligarchs who welcome and entice those people in the name of humanitarianism, it is just another way to strengthen their grip on their native subjects. Divide et impera – more patriot acts, bigger secret services, more financial pressure on working peons, less trust among the neighbors – equals more money to be made and power to obtain under cover of omnipresent security theater.

  6. Buckaroo

    One reason our current problems are so intractable is that their root causes are many, many decades old. Two key turning points were the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (which “reformed and controlled” nothing, and instead legitimized illegal immigrants, and those that employed immigrants illegally) and the Immigration Act of 1965 (which virtually ended immigration from Europe, in favor of radically expanding third-world immigration). The subsequent gigantic wave of illegal immigration of hispanic peoples, and legal wave of African and Asian third-worlders led to a massive demographic shift. Few people even know about the Immigration Act of 1965; even fewer ask what laid the groundwork for a law that was clearly designed to sabotage and undermine our country’s European heritage? I think you have to go back further to the 1930s, and the emergence of two different political ideologies: radical internationalism in the form of Soviet Communism, and radical nationalism in the form of the German NSDAP. When the US and western Europe was forced to pick a side, our leaders definitively chose to ally with internationalist Communism. Everyone knows that WW2 started when Poland was invaded, and Poland’s allies by treaty rallied to its side; but everyone forgets that Poland was invaded by two parties: NSDAP Germany AND the Communist Soviet Union. Yet somehow the Soviets got a pass, and war was declared only on Germany. Try researching why this happened; this topic is barely treated at all in the history books, and certainly not in any kind of convincing way. It’s worth noting that by September 1939, Lenin and Stalin had killed many millions– possibly as many as 20 millions– of people, while Hitler had barely gotten started; so by that standard it was blindingly obvious which was the lesser of the two evils. Obviously that was not the operative criterion, and one is led to conclude that western leaders simply preferred international socialism, and by symmetry, was opposed to nationalism– especially the ethnic nationalism espoused by the German NSDAP. If we assume that the west’s alliance with Communism was ideologically-driven, then following through post-war, we should see increased anti-nationalist policies, especially with regard to ethnically-uniform cultures and states. This implies that ethnic concentrations are to be diluted wherever they are found, and nationalism is to be undermined in favor of internationalism and globalism. Borders are to be dissolved– either de facto as the US southern border, or de jure as the EU borders–and the free movement of peoples is to be encouraged, especially when that movement results in permanent resettlement of ethnic and religious groups that have historically been greatly incompatible with each other. National and ethnic identities are to be eroded, and representative forms of government are to be replaced with a permanent bureaucracy, spanning antiquated borders, staffed by an international elite, and unaccountable to any kind of national popular constituency.

    It’s just a theory I’m working on.

    1. Quill_&_Blade

      Interesting theory, if Ted Kennedy was involved in the 1965 bill, I can believe it was communist. As for the rest, maybe it’s like swirling waters; a current above can be going a different direction than the one below. I used to listen to books on tape while I was driving; I had one that reenacted a scene in the American (Congress or Senate) during WW2. The representative was saying that “If we see the Germans winning, we should support the Russians; and if we see the Russians winning, we should support the Germans.” A bit of hyperbole to be sure, but probably not much. So maybe the communists were the lesser of two evils? Of course, America has long been a house divided, so it’s likely there was significant support for communism here. As far as trying to dilute nationalism for ideological purposes, I guess so, I’m not informed one way or the other. Maybe there were multiple communist influences in those days, but I’ve heard that as our cold war enemy, they were trying to break down society through drug use, rock music, and all those counter cultural things from back when.

  7. Buckaroo

    One reason our current problems are so intractable is that their root causes are many, many decades old. Two key turning points were the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (which “reformed and controlled” nothing, and instead legitimized illegal immigrants, and those that employed immigrants illegally) and the Immigration Act of 1965 (which virtually ended immigration from Europe, in favor of radically expanding third-world immigration). The subsequent gigantic wave of illegal immigration of hispanic peoples, and legal wave of African and Asian third-worlders led to a massive demographic shift. Few people even know about the Immigration Act of 1965; even fewer ask what laid the groundwork for a law that was clearly designed to sabotage and undermine our country’s European heritage? I think you have to go back further to the 1930s, and the emergence of two different political ideologies: radical internationalism in the form of Soviet Communism, and radical nationalism in the form of the German NSDAP. When the US and western Europe was forced to pick a side, our leaders definitively chose to ally with internationalist Communism. Everyone knows that WW2 started when Poland was invaded, and Poland’s allies by treaty rallied to its side; but everyone forgets that Poland was invaded by two parties: NSDAP Germany AND the Communist Soviet Union. Yet somehow the Soviets got a pass, and war was declared only on Germany. Try researching why this happened; this topic is barely treated at all in the history books, and certainly not in any kind of convincing way. It’s worth noting that by September 1939, Lenin and Stalin had killed many millions– possibly as many as 20 millions– of people, while Hitler had barely gotten started; so by that standard it was blindingly obvious which was the lesser of the two evils. Obviously that was not the operative criterion, and one is led to conclude that western leaders simply preferred international socialism, and by symmetry, was opposed to nationalism– especially the ethnic nationalism espoused by the German NSDAP. If we assume that the west’s alliance with Communism was ideologically-driven, then following through post-war, we should see increased anti-nationalist policies, especially with regard to ethnically-uniform cultures and states. This implies that ethnic concentrations are to be diluted wherever they are found, and nationalism is to be undermined in favor of internationalism and globalism. Borders are to be dissolved– either de facto as the US southern border, or de jure as the EU borders–and the free movement of peoples is to be encouraged, especially when that movement results in permanent resettlement of ethnic and religious groups that have historically been greatly incompatible with each other. National and ethnic identities are to be eroded, and representative forms of government are to be replaced with a permanent bureaucracy, spanning antiquated borders, staffed by an international elite, and unaccountable to any kind of national popular constituency.

    It’s just a theory I’m working on.

  8. robroysimmons

    Put the Trotskyites like Max Boot into the mix as well, he basically surrendered to the zeitgeist about “refugees. Hate to tell the Trotskyites but they just squandered the Holocaust card on that move, ask the French Jews about that genius move to open borders, because Hitler?

    1. Haxo Angmark

      Boot (is) the Jew. And the French Jews don’t mind. They’ve got Zion-in-Palestine to scamper away to. And thousands already have. Euro Whites will have to make their last stand on Spitzbergen

  9. Stacy0311

    We won’t have to worry about Islamist terrorist because we have women in combat arms now!!!
    And more expensive smokes at the PX.

    So we’ve got that going for us.
    Our military is going to be a fabulous fighting force to defend our country

    On a semi serious note, don’t refugees stay in camps? The Palestenians have been in refugee “camps” over 60 years now. Seems to be working out okay for them

  10. DSM

    The first concern, plainly as it is similar to my current employment, is how they vet the refugees exactly? Case in point, the full power of the US Gov’t adjudication process produced Hansen, Snowden, Ames and several others. It’s not an indictment of the process so much as an illustration of the difficulty of measuring someone’s intent, hidden or otherwise.
    That brings us to refugees from a country with a government that may or not be functioning. What exactly are we vetting them against? Who vouches for who? (Or is it whom, I never really got that rule…) The counterpoint to my example is that we’re not vetting for access to that level of information. Fair enough, to that I’d posit given a level of access to anything, like say, our country, what reasonably could we expect an action to be?
    I’ll also concede that the bogeyman isn’t hiding behind every bush and tree. The current situation needs a “pause” button. Slow down, take a look at we’re really doing and then act. Then it is up to the states to decide if they are willing to accept what will ultimately be left to them as “their problem now”.

    1. Bibliotheca Servare

      Is Snowden as despicable a figure as Ames and Hanssen? I mean, they deliberately betrayed our nation for nothing more than money, didn’t they? And they knew damned well it *was* treason! My understanding (and I am certainly open to correction) is that Snowden leaked what he did, not for personal gain, but because he couldn’t do otherwise and not hate himself…there wasn’t any money involved, was there? And jebus, the shit he unveiled! I don’t know if I can *like* Snowden, but I’m not sure I loathe him with the same intensity I feel for b*stards like Ames and Hanssen…if that makes sense? Excluding that, I completely agree with the content of your comment. “Vetting”? Are you *kidding* me?

  11. Keith

    I am waiting for the Paris riots of 2000 or so to happen here.

    On Mrs. Clinton I’m wondering what that “…vast right wing conspiracy…” thinks of her chances of coming into office she once mentioned in an interview on TV. Funny how nobody in the main stream ever brings that up.

  12. archy

    ***Look at the guy in the picture. Would he put Jews on cattle cars or push them into gas chambers? ***

    Steve is a now-decorated US C&I Border Patrol Agent.

  13. S

    If the importing of these barbarians can be compared to a leak in a vessel, then one should not forget that the boat is also rotten, burning, and storm driven onto a mined lee shore under fire from shore batteries.

    The majority of the crew is engaged in tasks such as: sleeping, buggering each other, robbing the lockers, hammering more holes in the hull to let the water out, painting murals on the superstructure, bailing with colanders, flooding the hold with crash pumps, rearranging deck chairs, fighting over more hammock space, polishing buttons, breeding and releasing diseased mutant super-rats, crapping in the galley and messing in the heads, and setting to keelhauing, flogging or murdering anyone that tries to change course, interfere with the madness, or abandon ship.

    The Captain and some of the officers intend to wreck the ship and build a new one more to their liking, and for this they need a compliant and adoring crew purged of any mutinous capability. The leak is a symptom and a tool, and no accident. It is not the main problem, though it is serious and a key part of the plan. It is also unstoppable.

    1. John Distai

      Your comment reminds me of this:

      ‘Twas on the good ship Venus,
      By Christ you should have seen us,
      The figurehead was a whore in bed,
      And the mast was the Captain’s penis.

      CHORUS:
      Frigging in the rigging,
      Wanking on the planking,
      Masturbating on the grating,
      There’s fuck all else to do.

      The Captain’s wife was Mabel,
      Whenever she was able,
      She gave the crew their daily screw,
      Upon the galley table,

      [Alternative]
      The Captain’s wife was Mable
      To fuck she wasn’t able,
      So the dirty shits, they nailed her tits
      Across the bar-room table.

      The cabin boy’s name was Kipper,
      A cunning little nipper,
      He lined his ass with broken glass,
      And circumcised the skipper.

      The ladies of the nation
      Arose in indignation,
      They stuffed his bum with chewing gum,
      A smart retaliation.

      The ship’s dog’s name was Rover,
      The whole crew did him over,
      We ground and ground that faithful hound,
      From Singapore to Dover.

      The First Mate’s name was Hopper,
      By Christ, he had a whopper,
      Twice round his neck, once round the deck,
      And up his ass for a stopper.

      The Second Mate’s name was Carter,
      By God, he was a farter,
      When the wind wouldn’t blow and the ship wouldn’t go,
      We’d get Carter to start her.

      [Alternative]
      The Second Mate’s name was Carter,
      He was a champion farter.
      He could fart anything from God Save the King
      To Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata.

      The bosun was O’Connell
      His arse was like a funnel
      We’d stuff his bum with so much cum
      It would fill the Blackwell tunnel.

      The Captain’s randy daughter,
      She fell into the water,
      Delighted squeals revealed that eels,
      Had found her sexual quarter.

      ‘Twas on the China Station,
      To roars of approbation,
      We sunk a Junk with a load of spunk,
      By mutual masturbation.

      The cook whose name was Freeman,
      He was a dirty demon,
      He served the crew with menstrual stew,
      And foreskins fried in semen.

      The cook whose name was Hooden –
      By Christ he was a good’n –
      He wanked off twice into the rice
      And called it Sago Puddin’.

      The Captain of that lugger,
      By Christ, he was a bugger,
      He wasn’t fit to shovel shit,
      From one ship to another.

      The Third Mate’s name was Wiggun,
      By God, he had a big ‘un,
      We bashed that cock with lump of rock
      For friggin in the riggin.

      The next Mate’s name was Andy,
      By God, that man was randy,
      We boiled his bum in red-hot rum,
      For coming in the brandy.

      The Fourth Mate’s name was Morgan,
      A homosexual Gorgon,
      A dozen crow in rows could pose,
      Upon his sexual organ,

      On the trip to Buenos Aires,
      We rogered all the fairies,
      We got the syph at Tenneriffe,
      And a dose of clap in the Canaries.

      Another cook was O’Mally,
      He didn’t dilly dally,
      He shot his bolt with a hell of a jolt,
      And whitewashed half the galley.

      The Captain was elated,
      The Crew investigated,
      The found some sand in his prostrate gland,
      He had to be castrated.

      Another Mate’s name was Paul,
      He only had one ball,
      But with that cracker he’d roll terbaccer,
      Around the cabin wall.

      The Boatswain’s name was Lester,
      He was a hymen tester,
      Through hymens thick he’d shove his prick
      And leave it there to fester.

      The engineer was McTavish,
      And young girls he did ravish,
      His missing tool’s at Istanbul,
      He was a trifle lavish.

      A homo was the Purser,
      He couldn’t have been warser,
      With all the crew he had a screw,
      Until they yelled, “Oh, no sir.”

      ‘Twas in the Adriatic,
      Where the water’s almost static,
      The rise and fall of arse and ball,
      Was almost automatic.

      The ship’s cat’s name was Hippy,
      His hole was black and shitty,
      But shit or not it had a twat,
      The Captain showed no pity.

      So now we end this serial,
      Through sheer lack of material,
      We wish you luck and freedom from
      Diseases venereal.

      1. Hognose Post author

        Gawd, that gave me rugby flashbacks. Question: will that be followed by a hangover flashback in the morning?

        1. S

          Hognose played rugby? Wow, the renaissance man grows ever more complex. Let me guess….breakaway?

          1. Hognose Post author

            Second row, actually, although sometimes I’d play the line. (I was too short to be a prop and too unskilled to be a hooker). Our club was dodgy enough that anyone willing to show up and try got all the playing time he could stand. We didn’t have a great w/l record but we were known as prodigious drinkers in the postgame setting.

        2. John Distai

          I just knew a handful of verses from a Limerick book I have. I didn’t realize how many additional verses it had. I apologize for competing with Kirk on length.

  14. Rex Tyrano

    Trump is right. Islam is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism or ANY other religion. Islam is in reality a totalitarian system of conquest and control. It was created initially to bring wealth and therefore power to Mecca – see Hajj, Umrah. It has only ever advanced by force of arms.

    The problem is not just “radical Islam”. The problem is Sunni Islam. Of the approximately 1.8 billion Muslims there are about 1.4 billion Sunni Muslims. If “only” 2% of Sunni Muslims are jihadists there are 28 million jihadists. From the so called “moderate” Muslims point of view the problem is that the Jihadists – ISIS, Boko Haram al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Shabaab, Taliban, et al, are exposing the Sunni plans for the world too early. The so called “moderates” would prefer to just continue massively out breeding the non-Muslim population and immigrating to non-Muslim nations until the Islamic population is large enough for Sharia to be imposed by vote. To the “moderate Sunni Muslim” when Sharia is the law of the land the ISIS like phase of operations to eliminate all non-Muslims can be carried out with victory assured. Muslims do not move to non-Muslim countries to assimilate. They do so to wage war. Notice Muslims already here and in the EU are already calling for Sharia. Notice also that 70% of the so called “refugees” entering the EU are males of military age. Allowing them to immigrate is suicidal.

    Sunni jihadists are killing people in every country that has more than a few Muslims. They are killing people in the US, Canada, England, Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Russia, China, India, Thailand, Myanmar, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria, all over the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. The killing is always and everywhere blamed on the US or Israel or somebody – anybody – else. But the only constant is Sunni Muslims killing people. There has never been an Islamic Reformation – don’t hold your breath waiting for one.

    Now the Saudi Wahhabists announced the formation of a Saudi Wahhabist led pan-Sunni nuclear capable military (Sunni Pakistan has nukes). It is ostensibly to “stop terrorism” – but Saudi is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.

    The rest of us can no longer just wait and hope. The most serious threat today is Islam. The US, EU, Russia, China, India and all non-Muslims need to unite to contain Islam, just as Communism was contained, until a cure can be found.

  15. Ned2

    These are not “refugees”, they are migrants. Economic migrants mostly. They ceased being refugees when they crossed their border into Turkey.
    The left loves the word “refugee” as it prompts the sympathy reaction in the media.

  16. Docduracoat

    Hognose, I don’t know why you say that letting in thousands of Moslem rapefugees is a bad idea.
    Everyone knows that only 1% of them are terrorists.
    (Sarcasm off)

  17. Pamela

    Kirk – The Feminist Movement

    I am a Vet. I was a mechanic by trade. I never bought into the movement. What put me off was the NOW (National Organization for Women). I remember reading some media they put out about Jerry Falwell. They just lied. I am no fan of Falwell but they had turned his words from an interview he did. Just so happens- I saw the interview. This key serves me well today. If the MSM reports anything. You know any part of it isn’t true. Flush it. Don’t give it a second thought. What you do know is they are liars.
    I do think what you see in the women today is the same as what you see in the young men. Young people today are easily manipulated.
    The women of my generation (55) had a somewhat different problems. We to had work with our families; trying to make ends meet. This left a lot of children to fend for themselves. My children had chores. They also worked for anything expensive that we refused to buy. Teenage boys are tough. Me and my husband worked together with them. I do know at 16- I had to let my husband handle punishment (not corporal punishment). I saw that my son knew exactly how to get around his mom. I was not trying to coddle him in any way but that was our relationship. I turned it over to my husband because I saw that I was not helping him. You have to be very honest with how your family is working. Some parents are self centered to the point that they become ineffective and forget their goal. You are parents to teach a child self sufficiency. My kids have long term marriages and good jobs. I hope this is always true but their failure is on them.
    Feminist seem to undermine the family unit somehow. I do feel like it doesn’t matter who does what in a family as long as it is working. The only rights that I ever gave up was being up all night with a crying babe and going to work at the crack of dawn. My husband did it too. How do you complain?
    I do believe in Equal Pay for Equal work. I think there in-lies your problem.
    Women in Combat is one of the stupidest things these idiots have ever come up with. I went to basic training. WOMEN do not have the upper body strength to carry most combat gear. You notice how fast they classified the Female Rangers Qualifications? You know they lowered the qualifications so they could pass. I do. I have no doubt. There were very few jobs not open to women. Notice how few female firefighter were in the USAF? They were allowed to train. Most women can not do it. It requires physical strength. I will admit that there maybe the odd women who can do certain physical jobs. BUT>>> the standards should never be lowered to ALLOW them to pass. If the Female Rangers are just there for window dressing; they might be OK. If you expect them to work along side the men in COMBAT- God Help us. I guess being Politically Correct is more important than a strong military. Ours has been gutted at every angle with the latest administration. It will be years before it is strong a gain.
    By the way,
    I took the same oath; a few times actually.
    It hurts me that your experience with women has been so awful. I guess I have had the opportunity to work with 90% men. Respect for each other is all it takes. I have known some of the finest women in our Armed Services. I may only remember the good. Low Moral individuals are easily forgotten. I wish you well.
    God Bless

Comments are closed.