The New Age Agenda Explained

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Book Review: Dangerous Times – Federal immigration policy and resettling the Hijra to America (from: 2015)

By James Simpson

Author and columnist Ann Corcoran is the founder and longtime author of the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog (https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/). After years in obscurity, she has received some much-deserved attention in the press for her breadth of knowledge on the U.S. government’s refugee resettlement and asylum programs. Those of us aware of her blog have for a long time found it a singularly invaluable resource about these little-known programs. I know of no one, in or out of government, who has a better grasp of these programs and the issues surrounding them and is willing to talk honestly about it.

Ann has written a short (78 page) book, available at Amazon, titled Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America. This book is a must read for Americans concerned about our nation’s increasingly uncertain future—which is to say allAmericans. It lays out the refugee resettlement program’s origins, its enabling legislation, the federal agencies and non-governmental organizations involved in the process, and the malevolent “Hijra” being pursued by Muslim radicals.

Hijra means migration, and, according to Islam’s doctrines and its quietly acknowledged organizational strategies, the goal of Muslim immigration today is not peaceful assimilation to the political system and mores of the host country. Instead, the goal is jihad by non-violent means—known as civilization jihad or Islamization. Ann states:

Jihad is a struggle against unbelievers. Immigration is a jihad on the West. It is a permanent jihad, creeping into every first world country, from the continent of Europe, to the Americas and to Australia and New Zealand. This jihad is happening every single day in the steady drip, drip, drip of mostly legal Muslim migration into western Judeo-Christian societies from largely Muslim countries across the globe.

Ann reveals how this strategy is being implemented through the refugee resettlement program. While most of America has focused with justifiable alarm on the illegal aliens flooding the southern border, refugee resettlement has flown under the radar. But like much we are learning about the government today, this program has grown wildly out of control, and is saddling communities with the huge problems refugee populations bring, without their say so and often, without even their knowledge. The Muslim population brings the potential for terrorism, and the inherent ambition to dominate the host country; the religion demands it.

Today, approximately 140,000 people from Muslim countries become legal permanent residents in America each year. Of these, approximately 100,000 enter either as refugees, asylum seekers, or family members of those already here. While many arguably are simply seeking a better life, their Imams and political leaders are plainly pursuing an agenda of cultural domination, not assimilation. Radical Islam is taught in many, if not all of the larger mosques, and radicalized Muslims are leaving to wage jihad in the Middle East and taking it to America’s streets.

Ann’s personal story is one of discovery. Living in a rural Maryland community, she first learned about refugee resettlement in 2007 with the sudden discovery that Church World Services, a subsidiary of the communist front National Council of Churches,[1] was resettling hundreds of refugees, including a large contingent of Russian-speaking Meskhetian Turks, in her community.

A large public meeting confronted the resettling agencies with many questions they didn’t want to answer: How much would this cost the community? Who would pay for it? Did the community have a say in the process? Why was the community not told? Instead of answering these questions, the agencies chose to move on, taking their refugees with them to a more “welcoming” community. The issue was resolved as far as Ann’s little town was concerned, but it piqued her curiosity and she began to research the issue, launching her now famous Refugee Resettlement Watch website.

Ann’s book exposes aspects of this program that literally no one—even the politicians supposedly overseeing it—understands. It describes how the program is being used by the Islamic radicals and corrupt American politicians, while the nine private “Voluntary Agencies” or VOLAGs, hired by the federal government to resettle refugees, have become highly paid lobbyists for the refugee program—all on our tax dollars.

The VOLAGs are key. These are nine private organizations, six of which are nominally religious:

Church World Service

Ethiopian Community Development Council

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

International Rescue Committee

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services

Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

Episcopal Migration Ministries

World Relief Inc.

The VOLAGs complain that they get precious little for their hard resettlement work, usually about $1,000 per refugee—to settle 110,000 refugees, asylum seekers and their families each year. But they protest a bit too much. There are many other grants and programs through which VOLAGs rake in almost $1 billion per year from the government. For those not counting, that’s almost $10,000 per refugee. All paid for by you and I. Furthermore, the religious organizations also rely on parishioner tithes and donations from leftwing foundations.

While churchgoers surely have the kindest motives, the church organizations receiving this money have degenerated into nothing more than highly-paid government contractors, whose top managers earn healthy six-figure incomes and carouse on the brie and wine circuit. And like most organizations feeding off the government, they have become very protective of their franchise. They work behind the scenes in a secretive, duplicitous manner, refuse to disclose information when asked, and lobby for an ever-expanding refugee program so they can further engorge themselves on federal tax dollars— all under the pretense of good intentions.

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, originally founded to resettle genuine Jewish refugees, is today one of the most aggressive Muslim resettling VOLAGs. They are currently pushing for the resettlement of 65,000 Syrians to the U.S., over 90 percent of which are Muslims. What would practicing Jews say if they knew synagogue dollars were being used to resettle populations that want to see them exterminated? As if suddenly self-conscious about this, the organization has rebranded itself as simply HIAS, Inc. HIAS President Mark Hetfield explains, “The word ‘Hebrew’ is so outdated, like using the word ‘colored’ to refer to African Americans.”

Sure.

But HIAS hasn’t stopped there. In 2013, it published a vicious little paper:Resettlement at Risk: Meeting Emerging Challenges to Refugee Resettlement in Local Communities. This paper identified Ann Corcoran’s blog as an example of resistance the resettlement agenda was facing from American citizens. The paper recommends a campaign of public vilification using organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to defame anyone with the temerity to challenge the VOLAGs or anyone else over the issue. Even though we are the ones paying for it!

The biggest laugh is the assertion that resettling refugees, especially Muslim and other non-Christians, is an opportunity for church groups to evangelize. I spokewith Jim Goodroe, a well-known advocate for refugee resettlement and Director of the Spartanburg County (South Carolina) Baptist Network. He said, “I view it from a mission rather than political perspective.” In other words, he saw it as a premier opportunity to fish for converts. Unfortunately for that narrative, federal law prohibits VOLAGs from proselytizing refugees, and they know this perfectly well. So did Mr. Goodroe. He was lying to me. As we have heard countless times before, follow the money.

But the book focuses specifically on Hijra, and how Muslims in America plainly view Muslim immigration in this light. The book is seeded with little gems that prove Ann’s point. Like the time Imam Hendi, the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University and Imam of the Islamic Society of Frederick, Maryland, bragged that the U.S. would have 30 Muslim mayors by 2015:

Mr. Hendi said U.S. Muslims were working on “nationalizing” Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries. “Last year, we elected the first Muslim to Congress, and I expect that by 2015, there will be three or four, as well as at least 30 mayors,” he said, adding that the number of Muslim lawyers in the United States has multiplied since September 11.

What would the press do if some Catholic priest bragged that the church would help elect 30 Catholic mayors, or if Pat Roberts stated his intention to seat 30 evangelicals? An ACLU lawsuit would be immediately in the works, and plenty of snarky articles and news stories would fill the airwaves.

Ann discusses population demographics and the role of birth rates in growing the Muslim population in target countries. And why are Muslim Imams so intent on building mega mosques in towns that don’t have enough Muslims to fill them? Most Imams preach in Arabic, though many Muslim refugees come from non-Arabic-speaking countries. They teach Arabic in the mosques, and sooner or later, demand it to be taught in public schools. In 2014, the Muslim Brotherhood established the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, the first Muslim Brotherhood political party in the U.S. Ann says,

…everything we see happening as the Muslim population grows is part of a carefully crafted and elaborate plan to bring about Sharia and ultimately the complete domination of our government and society by Islamic Law.

In the book’s conclusion, Ann offers some ideas about what actions we can take to stop this juggernaut. She suggests a moratorium on Muslim immigration and a number of other remedies. Communities will have to stand up and protest. The resettlement agencies abhor the sunlight of truth. Confront them with that—as the town did in Ann’s situation—and they seek greener pastures, taking their refugees elsewhere. But this is only a temporary measure.

Ultimately only a change to federal law will provide a permanent solution. But to build a groundswell of protest, people need to be aware of the problem. Ann has provided the necessary information. Get the book and take an afternoon to educate yourself about refugee resettlement, then consider getting involved.

[1] The communist front Federal Council of Churches was re-branded as the National Council of Churches in 1952. NCC is a subsidiary of the World Council of Churches, controlled by the Soviet KGB since the 1970s, according to former Romanian spy chief, Ion Pacepa.

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Feeding Your Inner Caligula

February 17, 2017

Feeding Your Inner Caligula

Self-love used to be a vice, but nowadays it is the nearest thing to a virtue, as a supposed precondition of our own mental health (whatever that might be).

An Irish friend kindly forwarded me an article from The Irish Times reporting on a school in County Dublin that, on St. Valentine’s Day, encouraged children to write Valentine cards to themselves. They were supposed to inscribe in them what they loved about themselves, on the theory that self-love is a precondition to success, happiness, and resilience, and should therefore be taught early and probably incessantly.

My view is that the head teacher of the school ought to be given hemlock to drink for corrupting youth, but I accept that some people might think this punishment a little severe. Indeed, there are some people—the author of the article among them, a psychotherapist—who think the promotion of youthful self-satisfaction and conceit an excellent idea, the key to the little ones’ future happiness.

I looked up the school’s mission statement on the internet. Suffice it to say that it contained few surprises, other than the fact that it existed at all. It was the expected dreary catalog of modern pieties, among them the celebration of the uniqueness of the child and respect for diversity of traditions, values, and beliefs, irrespective of the particular nature or content of those traditions, values. and beliefs. As for “celebrating” uniqueness: How is it to be done? By getting the little geniuses to chant “I am unique, you are unique, we are all unique, everyone is unique!” while holding hands and dancing round a tree as the teacher beats the rhythm on a tambourine?

“Self-love used to be a vice, but nowadays it is the nearest thing to a virtue.”

The tide of cliché has been rising for years, despite (or, as Schopenhauer would no doubt have said, because of) the ever-greater proportion of educated persons in the population. It requires a certain level of education, after all, to be able to write the following, taken at random from the article in The Irish Times:

Self-esteem matters, and as children are still forming core beliefs about themselves, adults can engage with them to really tune in to that fact.

No person who had left school at the age of 12 could have written such a sentence, which of course is a very powerful argument for reducing, as a preventive measure, the age at which children leave school. No mere ignoramus, no child sent down the mines at the age of 6, could ever have uttered these words, which somehow manage to combine dogmatism with absence of clear meaning.

But let us examine some of the more easily comprehensible, though not necessarily worthwhile, sentiments expressed in the article:

A child who develops such beliefs as “I am kind, I am competent, I am lovable” will likely find themselves [sic] on a path to good self-esteem. A child who, on the other hand, develops more negative beliefs about himself, such as “I have no talent, I am not liked by others” will likely have lower self-esteem and this can affect their [sic] mental health.

What is most remarkable about this is that neither here nor elsewhere in the article does the author think it necessary for there to be some objective correlative of the belief. That is to say, it is perfectly in order for the child to have a belief about himself that is completely unrelated to any of his conduct. According to this view of the matter, a child can, and indeed ought to, remind himself that he is kind while he is pulling the legs and wings off a fly or throwing stones through an old lady’s front window. As angels to wanton boys are we to the psychologists.

Criminals, especially the vicious rather than the merely pathetic ones, have very high self-esteem. They are generally proud of how awful they have been and positively swagger with satisfaction at their own competence in the matter of causing misery to others. They too have “core beliefs” about themselves, all of them highly flattering. They even think they are lovable as well as admirable.

The author wasn’t just having an off day such as we all have whenever we try to think. Here is what she wrote in the same journal just before Christmas last year:

There has been a lot of talk lately, at a national, local and personal level, about the importance of putting mental health front and centre. Therefore, as the Christmas season approaches, during this time of gift-giving, we have an opportunity to focus on what we can gift to ourselves, in order to impact in a positive way on our mental health.

And what is the gift we can give ourselves? “Living life authentically, getting in tune with our true sense of how we wish to be in this world.” And what if what we really, truly, and authentically wish to be is Caligula? Well, “research” (before which we must all bow down and worship) shows that “when we are authentic…even if it sets up to be different from others, it still correlates with increased levels of joy and wellbeing.” Oh, happy, happy Caligula!

When reading this kind of saccharine psychological bilge, I feel rather (though not exactly) as I do after having eaten too many chocolate truffles at a sitting. Alternatively, one might call the thoughts of the author of the articles psychological kitsch. Kitsch is hard to define but easy to recognize: It is a kind of sentimental garishness approximating or imitating, but not attaining, art. These articles are conspicuously sentimental, written with something approximating or imitating, but not attaining, thought.

I asked a fishmonger what he thought of the idea of children sending themselves Valentine cards inscribed with what they loved about themselves.

“Valentine’s Day is bad enough,” he said, “without bringing children into it.”

Now, that’s what I call a genuine thought.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Globalization – the Effect on Culture

Globalization is composed of a swirl of causes and effects that have been profoundly world-changing. At the top of the Cause column are vastly improved communications — in particular, the Internet, which used to be called the World-Wide Web — and faster cheaper travel. The latter permits less expensive transport of goods as well as humans, so the global economy of transnational trade is foundational to the process and associated beliefs.

The Internet is a big player in spreading the idea that there are places on earth more desirable than someone’s third-world backwater. Belief in the importance of borders and national sovereignty has diminished with the growing view that relocation can be a smart choice for the global poor. Anyway, why bother working to reform and build a better life in the homeland when it’s easier to simply leave for greener pastures? And many have. Increased immigration has been a big part of expanding the globalist, one-worlder ideology. The United Nations reported that the number of persons living in a country other than their birthplace reached 244 million in 2015 worldwide, a 41 percent increase over 2000.

Homeland reformers are in short supply these days. In an earlier generation, people like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi took on the leadership chore of nation-building. You may not like their politics and the sort of nations they constructed, but they entered the arena and struggled with the heavy lifting of political reform.

Take Mexico — there’s a country that could use a reformer. It routinely ranks among the top 15 nations for its GDP, yet in 2014 the poverty rate was 46.2 percent according to the government agency Coneval. Mexico is very wealthy indeed for the rich elites who run the place, like the 15 Mexican billionaires that Fortune counted on its list for 2017. The magazine observed in March, “Despite a weak currency and a sluggish economy, the combined net worth of Mexico’s billionaires climbed 17 percent, from $99.6 billion in 2016 to $116.7 billion.”

Mexico is blessed with many physical advantages like scenic coasts and mineral resources, and its middle class has been expanding, although slowly. There is a sense that it could do a lot better if it had a serious leader who could knock back the economic sclerosis and improve living standards for those at the bottom of the economic pile.

Television, print media, and the Internet all spread the gospel of first-world-style consumption around the world. The Wall Street Journal carried a memorable story of how the attraction of a sparkly modern lifestyle draws impressionable youth from the third world in its revealing article, “Allure of Wealth Drives Deadly Trek” (June 12, 2015). The subject of the story, 27-year-old Ibrahima Ba, lived in moderately prosperous Senegal and had decent prospects in life, yet he joined fellow residents of his village of Kothiary to travel 3,000 miles to Europe. He apparently died crossing the Mediterranean.

Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars—mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe—have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.

But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out.

Senegal has been developed according to Western ideas of how to grow out of poverty: it has held elections for decades, liberalized trade, and built infrastructure. Yet the country is no longer adequate in the eyes of young people when an idealized view of a wealthy Europe is broadcast daily. The idea of loyalty to home and country does not seem to even occur to the young men headed north. The fervour to leave seems almost like a gold rush — hurry and get some or it will all be gone.

In fact, many of the European jobs the Africans hope to find for making their fortune will be gone before long, as automation replaces human workers in tasks that are simple and repetitious.

Globalization across Planet Earth brings new information about different cultures as its practitioners arrive as immigrants and seek to make their mark, culturally as well as economically. Today’s newbies are not expected to embrace assimilation as in earlier generations: the left has condemned cultural integration as an outdated concept that doesn’t respect diversity. However, not all diversity is admirable, as we have learned by exposure to extreme versions. Because of immigration, Americans have in recent years become acquainted with the beliefs and practices of Islam, including poly-gamy, the honor killing of disobedient females, and war against anyone who does not accept the supremacy of Allah. Ignorance was bliss.

Globalism, the belief system, has its adherents of course. One-worlderism is a liberal faith, based on the naive idea that if people just got to know each other, then war would cease and peace would prevail. It’s a vague, unrealistic ideal, but it feels good to the believer. But the idea ignores the obvious fact that not all cultures are morally equal. American women and their friends are not vacationing in Saudi Arabia, and the reason is deep-seated cultural misogyny that shows up in practices like gender segregation in restaurants.

One version of the globalist faith has been blossoming in Canada, where its liberal prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has declared the country he runs to be postnational. The idea of a post-national nation doesn’t make much sense, but Trudeau is a true believer nevertheless. He enthusiastically bragged about the odd category in a New York Times Magazine interview, “Trudeau’s Canada, Again” (December 8, 2015):

Trudeau’s most radical argument is that Canada is becoming a new kind of state, defined not by its European history but by the multiplicity of its identities from all over the world. His embrace of a pan-cultural heritage makes him an avatar of his father’s vision. ‘‘There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’ he claimed. ‘‘There are shared values — openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first postnational state.’’

Trudeau pictures globalist values as written in the liberal playbook, but his fuzzy list of positive traits is not shared in the sizable Islamic slice of the world which numbered 1.6 billion persons as of 2010, according to Pew Research.

These imagined globalist principles are sometimes used as a club to beat back western progress in society and replace it with political correctness which refuses to recognize evil. Liberals try to bully Americans into respecting hostile Islamists in our midst, when we should instead reject the whole eighth century ideology. Islam is more accurately described as a totalitarian political system wrapped in a religious package. Therefore it should not be afforded the respect we as Americans normally afford to genuine religions.

As Dutch politician Geert Wilders remarked:

I have nothing against the people. I don’t hate Muslims. But Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It rules every aspect of life — economics, family law, whatever. It has religious symbols, it has a God, it has a book — but it’s not a religion. It can be compared with totalitarian ideologies like Communism or fascism. There is no country where Islam is dominant where you have a real democracy, a real separation between church and state.

So perhaps it’s wise to be suspicious of Islamic diversity and immigration.

Interestingly, globalist ideology has come under criticism in recent years, with more appreciation for the nation-state, particularly among average people. Former Czech President Václav Klaus praised that form of governance in 2003: “You cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.” The passage in Britain of BREXIT to divorce from the European Union and the election of Donald Trump show the rejection of the open-borders diversity model of organization. In early 2017, patriot candidates Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen of France failed in elections for national leadership, but both moved the debate to the issues of sovereignty and immigration. It’s disappointing that they lost, but at least immigration is being discussed with a degree of realism about the unfriendly culture of some newcomers.

Globalist diversity includes a mixture of good and bad symptoms. We appreciate French brie and enjoy Italian opera, but we prefer to live without polygamy and honor killing. Western culture and political rights have been hard won over centuries. Now more than ever, citizens must insist upon immigration assimilation because of the extreme diversity being admitted. Or better yet, the government should not admit immigrants from cultures that are historic enemies of western values. America must not drift into a hazy state of post-nationalism and belief in globalist standards.

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

/Pol/ was right again

/Pol/ was right again. (Link in comments)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Test

Test test

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MY PRESIDENT

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Veterans Turn To Marijuana To Ditch ‘Cocktail Of Drugs’ From The VA Photo of Steve Birr STEVE BIRR

The bud of a marijuana plant.
Shutterstock/Steve Ikeguchi

Proposals to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana and open up access to cannabis products for veterans are gaining bipartisan traction despite uncertainty from the Trump administration.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a measure July 13 that would let doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs give patients approval to access medical marijuana in states where it is legal. A proposal from Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz seeks to reschedule marijuana, currently classified as a Schedule I substance alongside heroin, as a substance recognized by the federal government as having therapeutic value, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Building bipartisan momentum for marijuana issues concerning veterans comes on the heels of American Legion, a veterans group with more than 2 million members, formally launching a campaign in May advocating the government open access to the substance for returning service members. It is unclear if the Trump administration, which has been adversarial towards legal pot, will support these efforts.

“We were hearing these compelling stories from veterans about how cannabis has made their lives better,” Joseph Plenzler, a spokesman for American Legion, told the Los Angeles Times Friday. “That they were able to use it to get off a whole cocktail of drugs prescribed by VA doctors, that it is helping with night terrors, or giving them relief from chronic pain.”

The current federal classification of marijuana greatly restricts the ability of researchers to study the medical application of cannabis with federal funding. It also prevents doctors at the VA from recommending marijuana for treatment, even if it can cut down or replace a patients daily intake of opioid painkillers.

“It is a travesty,” Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a longtime advocate for greater marijuana access, told the Los Angeles Times. “They are given opiates instead of maybe something they can derive from marijuana. … And our veterans end up killing themselves because now they are addicted to an opiate.”

A growing chorus of veteran groups are petitioning the government to ease restrictions on federal marijuana policy. Many are unable to get relief from painkillers or traditional treatments allowed under current federal law, leaving them at the mercy of their particular state’s policy.

Texans For Responsible Marijuana Policy, a veterans group, recently launched an effort to legalize medical marijuana in their state to draw attention to the daily struggles facing so many veterans.

GOP Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill last year allowing medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD in New Jersey, which officials are currently working to implement. Of the 28 states with legal medical marijuana programs, 14 currently offer pot for treating PTSD.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/veterans-turn-to-marijuana-to-ditch-cocktail-of-drugs-from-the-va/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Common Sense Solutions to the Illegal Alien Crisis

By Dave Gibson

We are so often told that illegal immigration is a “complicated” issue and that it would either be “unfair” or “too hard” to defend this nation from foreign nationals who have no legal right to be here.

Well, with citizens being raped and murdered by illegal aliens on a daily basis, and the fewest number of Americans working since 1977, it is time to try!

What follows is a short list of solutions, which could be easily undertaken, if only we had someone in the White House willing to carry them out.

First, place the military on the border

Rather than sending a few hundred National Guardsmen to the 2,000 mile-long border under orders to never stop anyone entering this country illegally, the way Presidents Bush and Obama did, if, say, 20,000 troops along with their tanks, helicopters, and U.S. Air Force overflights were utilized along the border (the same way we do for other countries), illegal entries would come to a screeching halt.

During a July 2010 news conference at the Pentagon, Gen. Craig McKinley, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters that National Guard troops would begin a yearlong deployment on August 1, along the 2,000-mile-long U.S./Mexican border, The Dallas Morning News reported.

While the 1,200 troops were armed, they could only use their weapons for self-defense. The troops were distributed along the border as follows:

• Arizona…524

• Texas…250

• California…224

• New Mexico…72

With another 130 troops assigned to something called a “national liaison office.”

One item which Gen. Craig let slip during the press conference was the fact that the states of Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico combined, were currently contributing 54,000 National Guard troops to the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the federal government could only supply 1,200 troops back to that region, though that corner of our nation is being invaded by drug dealers and human smugglers.

The number of troops sent to the expansive and incredibly dangerous border amounted to 0.6 soldiers for every mile of the border. This, combined with the questionable rules of engagement under which they were deployed, made the mission nothing more than a pitiable, political gesture from the White House.

In 2005, the Bush administration began to use U.S. combat troops to patrol the borders which define Iraq. In fact, at the time, he announced that there would be a complete lock-down on Iraq’s borders during that nation’s elections. Obama has also used our troops in that same capacity, as well as in providing border security for Afghanistan. While protecting the borders of foreign lands has been a priority for both Presidents Bush and Obama, neither has ever shown a portion of that commitment to their own country.

The Mexican border could and should be made a permanent duty station for U.S. troops. This would allow the Border Patrol to fully staff the official entry points, which would dramatically reduce the amount of drugs as well as the number of criminals coming into this country through the official crossing checkpoints on a daily basis.

It would seem that the taxpayers of Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico are working for the security of foreign lands, rather than for that of their own states.

We could simply take the troops from Germany, where 38,000 U.S. troops are stationed, or any number of other locations around the world (28,500 are now stationed in Korea), and use our military to protect our own border.1

If, after 60 years, the Republic of Korea cannot defend itself from North Korea’s penniless, half-starved population, then they are no strategic ally of the U.S. and should be given six months’ notice that we are leaving to defend our own people.

Second, mandatory prison sentences for CEOs who hire illegal aliens

Whether it is a landscaping company run out of someone’s kitchen in Cicero, Illinois; a 30-unit independent hotel in Virginia Beach; or a corporate giant such as Tyson Foods Inc., once caught with illegal aliens in their employ, the head of that company should spend the next ten years of his/her life in prison.

Additionally, a percentage of that company’s profits commensurate with the percentage of their employees who are illegal aliens should be seized.

Third, cut off all federal funds to cities that have “sanctuary policies” for illegal aliens

If a city such as Chicago, which has such a policy in place, refuses to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by not allowing police officers either to inquire into or report the immigration status of those arrested, thus shielding criminal aliens from notification and eventual deportation, their funds will be immediately suspended. No more federal money for roads, schools, no special grants, no construction projects funded with federal money—nothing!

Only once all municipal agencies in that city are found to be in compliance, will federal funds be restored.

Fourth, require anyone registering a child in a public school to provide proof of U.S. citizenship

Illegal aliens have been getting a free education for their children on the backs of American taxpayers for far too long. The practice has led to overcrowded classrooms, “English as a second language” courses in all of the border states, and, as we saw in 2014, an epidemic of paralytic Enterovirus.

The amount of money spent per child in public school annually varies from state to state, as well as district to district. However, it averages several thousands of dollars per child. Why should American taxpayers be subsidizing the families of illegal aliens?

If parents were required to provide proof of citizenship to register the child, many illegal aliens would simply leave the country. You take away the things that draw them here and most will deport themselves.

The state of California is now bankrupt largely due to years of allowing Mexicans to illegally move their families to the state. Overwhelmed with children who speak only Spanish, they can no longer provide a decent education for American-born children.

Fifth, begin mass deportations

Again, if you take away the goodies (jobs, free education, in-state college tuition, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.), most will return to Mexico and Central America on their own. However, there will remain a number of illegal aliens who will refuse to leave, a great many of whom will be hardcore criminals (gang members, drug dealers, etc.). These human predators will only return home if forcibly removed.

We have heard so many times that it is “impossible to deport 12 million people.”

First, the number of illegal aliens in this country is closer to 40 million; second, nothing is impossible.

As was proven six decades ago (during Operation Wetback), most will leave after they are denied the services they now steal with ease. The rest would be deported upon arrest for other crimes.2

Additionally, the next president must be willing to take military action against the Mexican cartels, as well as the government forces which protect them.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered General John J. Pershing to lead an invasion into Mexico, against Pancho Villa’s forces. Villa’s bandits were making constant incursions into the U.S. and regularly robbing, raping, and killing Americans living in towns along the border. These criminals operated openly due to rampant corruption among Mexican political and military leaders.

Units of the Mexican military regularly cross the border into this country. The well-armed units escort drug and human smugglers and even fire upon U.S. Border Patrol agents. It is estimated that Latin American drug cartels spend more than $500 million annually paying off high-ranking Mexican military and police officials.

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said in a 2002 interview:

There’s no doubt Mexican military units along the border are being controlled by drug cartels, and not by Mexico City. The military units operate freely, with little or no direction, and several of them have made numerous incursions into the United States.

In January 2008, the Department of Homeland Security reported that since 1996, there had been 278 known incursions by the Mexican military into the United States. They are often seen providing armed escort to drug smugglers. Incredibly, the Mexican military now enters our nation at will, with no response from the U.S. government.

Illegal aliens account for 29 percent of our total prison population. Many more Mexican criminals still roam our streets. The 18th Street Gang and MS-13 have already taken over the streets of Los Angeles, and now they are staking out territory across the country. One million Mexican criminals are the equivalent of 50 divisions of enemy soldiers within this country.

A 2009 Department of Justice (DOJ) report identified 231 U.S. cities in which the cartels had fully functioning distribution operations, with the list stretching from Tucson to Buffalo. By 2013, the DOJ admitted in another report, cartels were operating in an astounding 1,286 American cities.3

In addition to the threat coming from the powerful cartels, thousands of American children are sexually assaulted every year by illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America, as these criminals bring their cultural attitudes towards women and children to this country.

For example, between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2014, there were 4,317 charges of child sexual assault filed against illegal aliens in North Carolina, according to the citizen’s advocacy group known as NCFIRE.4

As responsible citizens, we should demand that central to any candidate’s presidential platform must be a comprehensive, aggressive plan to deal with the criminal threat posed to this nation by Mexico.

A few suggestions follow:

• A two-pronged campaign utilizing U.S. Special Forces and aerial bombing to decapitate the cartels’ leadership and destroy their production and distribution operations within Mexico.

• An invasion and occupation 20 miles deep into Mexico along the nearly 2,000-mile-long border, in order to create a buffer zone free from drug and human smugglers.

• Completion of the double-layered, Israeli-Gaza-style fence along the border, which was authorized by the 2006 Secure Fence Act (of which Obama illegally halted construction upon taking office).5

If these are not implemented and we allow yet another open-borders, Chamber of Commerce candidate to become president, we may as well start looking for another country, as this one will be lost.

We have had a succession of administrations which have failed to enforce our immigration laws, resulting in basically the erasure of our sovereign border with Mexico. Put simply, this country is slowly (or not so slowly) becoming a Third World nation, as both legal and illegal immigrants from the Third World now dominate new arrivals.

We have the infrastructure, the resources, and the right to deport as many illegal aliens from this nation as we want. The only thing we are now lacking is a federal government with the courage to do so.

The United States simply will not survive more of the same.

Endnotes

1. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

3. http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2013/01/mexican-drug-cartels-operate-in-1286-us.html

4. http://ufp.flywheelsites.com/north-carolina-4000-charges-child-sex-assault-filed-illegal-aliens-past-year/

5. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6061/text

 

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The 2nd Amendment Comes To Europe: Czech Republic Expected To Enshrine Right To Bear Arms In Constitution

ar-15-soldier-militia

Most people inside and outside of the US believe that this country’s gun ownership rate is unique, but that’s not exactly true. Though America has the most privately owned guns per capita, there are other countries that aren’t too far behind us, such as Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, and many Western nations like Finland and Switzerland. In most cases, these countries don’t have access to the same kind of firearms that we do, but nonetheless there are a ton of guns floating around in these places.

What really separates the US from every other country in the world, is that we have the right to bear arms preserved in our constitution. Technically, Honduras and Mexico have the same right in their constitutions, but in both cases it comes with a lot of restrictions. Their right to bear arms doesn’t have any teeth. The Swiss are known for letting many of their citizens own guns, but gun ownership for most Swiss citizens is more of a duty than a right.

America stands alone in this regard. We’re the only country with a constitution that gives civilians a clear and explicit right to own and carry firearms. In every other nation, civilians don’t own firearms unless their governments let them.

That however, is about to change. While most EU governments are eyeing more restrictive gun laws, the Czech Republic is about to add the right to bear arms to its constitution.

Czech Lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution in a move directed against tighter regulations from the European Union.

The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths of the members in order to pass into law, Die Presse reports.

Similar to the U.S. second amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.”

The amendment also notes that the right is there to ensure the safety of the country, similar to the provision of a “well-regulated militia” in the American amendment.

After the bill passes through the senate, it’s expected to be signed into law by President Milos Zeman, who changed his mind on privately owned guns last year. “Earlier I spoke often about limiting the ability to have large quantities of weapons. But after the terrorist attacks, I have changed the idea.”

Though the Czech Republic has always had loose gun laws compared to its neighbors, this law represents a major shift in the European public’s stance on firearm ownership. If anything, it could be just the tip of the iceberg. All across the continent, as migrants grow more violent and as terror attacks become more frequent, we’re seeing Europeans buy more firearms. In some cases, firearm sales have spiked by 350%.

If there’s any silver lining to the massive influx of migrants into Europe over the past few years, it’s that it has taught ordinary Europeans how important it is to let civilians own firearms.

Most people inside and outside of the US believe that this country’s gun ownership rate is unique, but that’s not exactly true. Though America has the most privately owned guns per capita, there are other countries that aren’t too far behind us, such as Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, and many Western nations like Finland and Switzerland. In most cases, these countries don’t have access to the same kind of firearms that we do, but nonetheless there are a ton of guns floating around in these places. What really separates the US from every other country in the world, is that we have the right to bear arms preserved in our constitution. Technically, Honduras and Mexico have the same right in their constitutions, but in both cases it comes with a lot of restrictions. Their right to bear arms doesn’t have any teeth. The Swiss are known for letting many of their citizens own guns, but gun ownership for most Swiss citizens is more of a duty than a right. America stands alone in this regard. We’re the only country with a constitution that gives civilians a clear and explicit right to own and carry firearms. In every other nation, civilians don’t own firearms unless their governments let them. That however, is about to change. While most EU governments are eyeing more restrictive gun laws, the Czech Republic is about to add the right to bear arms to its constitution. Czech Lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution in a move directed against tighter regulations from the European Union. The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths of the members in order to pass into law, Die Presse reports. Similar to the U.S. second amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.” The amendment also notes that the right is there to ensure the safety of the country, similar to the provision of a “well-regulated militia” in the American amendment. After the bill passes through the senate, it’s expected to be signed into law by President Milos Zeman, who changed his mind on privately owned guns last year. “Earlier I spoke often about limiting the ability to have large quantities of weapons. But after the terrorist attacks, I have changed the idea.” Though the Czech Republic has always had loose gun laws compared to its neighbors, this law represents a major shift in the European public’s stance on firearm ownership. If anything, it could be just the tip of the iceberg. All across the continent, as migrants grow more violent and as terror attacks become more frequent, we’re seeing Europeans buy more firearms. In some cases, firearm sales have spiked by 350%. If there’s any silver lining to the massive influx of migrants into Europe over the past few years, it’s that it has taught ordinary Europeans how important it is to let civilians own firearms.

 

(Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment