Orlando nightclub shootings

One would think that last night’s massacre at an Orlando nightclub, with gay (mostly Hispanic) victims and a Moslem immigrant shooter would pose serious conflicts for the leftist multicultists and their media arm. You would think that they would have to choose between sympathy for their gay heroes and their Moslem mascots, but no, like all good leftists, they have no problem with holding two contradictory positions at the same time. Gays are the victims and Moslems are victims. Both are victims of Whites, especially White Christian males, according to the alternate-reality delusions of the left. So somehow the leftists are championing both the murdered nightclub customers AND the fiend who killed them.

What else could we expect of ‘psychotic’ leftists?

Somehow the media are spinning this to make it the fault of Whites, especially White Christians, and of course guns are likewise culprits.

Who benefits from this kind of thing? The left. Their narrative manages to get reinforced because they control the media and through it, most gullible people’s minds. Both gays and Moslems will gain more sympathy, at least from the unthinking portion of the masses. The Moslems will be loudly defended by their media friends and their ‘advocacy’ (read: propaganda) groups like CAIR; they will be painted as just good people who are unfortunately being profiled and persecuted for no good reason, and gays will gain more outpourings of sympathy from the media and the kinds of people who eat up all the media swill. Expect a massive outpouring of defenses of both Moslems and gays, and expect to hear the terms ‘homophobia/transphobia’ and ‘Xenophobia/Islamophobia’ slung around like never before.

Donald Trump, needless to say, will somehow be blamed by the usual propagandists.

One last thing to note: the shooter was an immigrant. A LEGAL immigrant. A naturalized citizen, in fact, just as American as you or me in this proposition nation.

And his parents were ‘refugees’. Imagine.

Advertisements

1.5 million yearly

That’s the number of legal immigrants entering our country, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Ever since I first started blogging — and blogging mostly about immigration, 10 years ago, this number has been reported as 1.5 million legal immigrants yearly. I’ve been citing that number for ages, and yet it seemed for the longest time to make little impression on a lot of people. Even now it doesn’t seem to sink in with a certain percentage of people — though the rise of Donald Trump seems to indicate that people are finally ‘getting it’, getting an idea of the gravity of the situation.

If it’s explained in terms of saying that 30 million legal immigrants have been added over the last 20 years, that should impress most people. And that’s not counting the mostly uncountable illegals, who certainly outnumber the legal ones by quite a margin.

Yet there are still the stubborn people who repeat the mantra “…as long as they come in legally, as long as they obey the laws, as long as they go by our rules…” but is it true that the tens of millions are not a problem as long as they obey the letter of the law?

My answer is: it’s not true, no matter how many times the pollyannas and the immigration enthusiasts repeat it. The pro-immigrant pollyannas and romanticists say that ‘legal immigrants are the good ones, because they respect the law and they are willing to follow procedures and learn English and assimilate”, and all the rest of the comforting platitudes.

Another favorite claim is that the legal ones are a better class of people, hard-working and often better-qualified to be productive citizens. All evidences are that there is little difference, given that by far most immigrants are from Third World countries, and given that legal or illegal, they often have little education and low skills, or even if educated, little fluency in English or familiarity with our system, our way of life here, and our society’s morals and standards. How many news stories have we read where some immigrant (legal or not) commits a crime and pleads unfamiliarity with our culture and its moral rules or legal system? Personally I’ve heard quite a few of these stories.

How much longer can our country continue to absorb a million and a half legal immigrants — not to mention the uncounted millions of illegal ones — plus the ‘chain migration’ of all their relatives, in-laws, and relatives of in-laws? Whole colonies have grown up in this country which started with a few people as the ‘seeds’ and ended up populating whole neighborhoods or small towns. Given enough time, that’s what happens.

Immigration has to be de-romanticized, stripped of its maudlin mystique — the ”nation of immigrants”, the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and all the rest of it. Most of my readers are aware, but there are still too many people who see immigration as something to get all misty-eyed and maudlin about, something to occasion a feeling of patriotic fervor.  Yet at some point even these people need to see that it’s not what we need in 21st century (post)-America. Sometimes people need a splash of cold water to wake them up. I don’t know if this latest report will do that but sooner or later the sentimental illusions need to give way to reality.

 

Illiberal liberalism

The title of this post is not so much an oxymoron as it appears. Liberalism, falsely so-called, at least as it is practiced in the West today, is obviously totalitarian, requiring considerable use of mind-conditioning, suppression of facts, and outright force and coercion to carry out its misbegotten policies — and to retain power.

The Council of European Canadians blog has a piece on a book called The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights.

Just why would there be a ”liberal theory of majority rights”, given that the “liberals” have spent the last several decades delegitimizing, even denying the existence of the rights of the majority — at least, when that majority happens to be White, as has historically been the case in Europe and in the Anglosphere worldwide? Have the leftists/progressives just discovered something new under the sun? Sorry to disappoint anyone, but no, they haven’t. As the writer at the CofEC blog reports, the purpose of the book is to co-opt the growing tide of nationalist sentiment, in the face of the debacle in Europe and elsewhere:

“Liberals now realize they need to up their game; the continued emphasis on minority rights sounds absurd. But we must not allow ourselves to be co-opted by the nice sounding phrases of Orgad’s book about the “cultural rights of majorities,” the right of Europeans to judge immigration in light of their cultural needs for preservation.”

The book’s author, Orgad, admits that his intent was to offer a new approach,

“…by which liberal democracies can welcome immigrants without fundamentally changing their cultural heritage, forsaking their liberal traditions, or slipping into extreme nationalism.”

In other words, to fend off criticism from the less-rabid liberals or from the timid right, (otherwise known as ‘cuckservatives’) and thus to allow things to continue full speed ahead, on their present disastrous course.

Liav Orgad, the writer, offers this description of an earlier work of his on the same basic subject:

Illiberal Liberalism:Cultural Restrictions on Migration and Access to Citizenship in Europe

It appears Orgad has spent considerable time working out his ideas, obviously meant to serve the interests of non-European/nonwhite immigrants and would-be -immigrants to the West. His idea is some kind of token conformity, along civic lines, on the part of immigrants in exchange for granting them the “right” to settle permanently in European and Western (historically White) countries. Obviously the rights of the majority are not even mentioned in this description of his ideas. The introduction of the phrase ”majority rights” is just a bone to be tossed to the increasingly restive majority; it is not a recognition that we, in fact, have any rights. The phrase is just a subterfuge.

We’re not supposed to notice, but if the name Liav Orgad summons up associations like ”rootless cosmopolitan”, it’s because he is that, apparently, at least as far as his ethnicity, citizenship (possibly dual?) and his places of education and subsequent residence.

And even if we notice the ethnic origins of people like Orgad and so many others who are actively promoting ”multiculturalism” and “diversity” (meaning replacement of Whites with nonwhites), we are not supposed to mention it, to point it out, or to attribute any significance to it whatsoever. It’s just random chance, is the implication behind the taboo on noticing. The noticing, even simply observing that many of the prime movers and important actors in this scenario are Jewish and in many cases Israeli, is categorized as not simply common-sense observation but as that greatest evil of all, ”anti-Semitism.”

There was a time when I felt very uncomfortable noticing, and I naively thought I could stay ‘above’ this kind of thing, stay neutral. But it seems that our most determined opponents are not content to remain neutral; they are very partisan in securing what they claim as their own ethnic interests. I see no reason why the same ”right” should not be accorded to us. They obviously are not content to pursue their own interests in their own country but must work all over the West to be sure our ethnic interests are nullified while theirs are pressed, at the expense of ours.

What is it to Mr. Orgad that Third-World ‘migrants’ be allowed, en masse, into our countries? Obviously he sees his interests as being in opposition to ours, and has chosen to work on behalf of lawless ‘migrants’ and ‘refugees’ in countries which are not his own, nor those of his kin. And if he has a heart that bleeds so for the marauding migrants who are now causing havoc in Europe (and here), why does he not work to get more migrants admitted to his home, Israel?

And yes, that question is rhetorical.

Speaking of lies…

In a recent post, I was decrying this recurring ‘talking point’ of the open-borders crowd: the claim that sending illegals home is “breaking up families” and ”tearing children from their parents” and other such manipulative nonsense.

Now here we have John Kasich of Ohio, in his bid to become president, spouting just this very lie:

[Kasich]  flatly rejected the idea of the mass deportations Donald Trump has called for.

 “You don’t actually think, folks, that we’re going to drive around in Canton Ohio and yank people out of their homes and ship them to Mexico, leaving their kids on the front porch. You really think that’s going to happen.”

The crowd, overwhelmingly, answered “no.”

Is Kasich ignorant, or merely dishonest? He is the governor of his state; can someone attain governorship of one of these United States despite being so out-of-touch with reality? Really, Mr. Kasich, where has this ever happened in this country when someone is deported? When have children been left alone on a porch or in a house (as per other statements by Kasich which I’ve read), unattended? This would just not happen. Ever.

I defy anyone who makes such idiotic claims to back up their claims with facts: name places, dates, names of those deported and the names of irresponsible authorities who would supposedly leave unattended children to fend for themselves.

And why does nobody ever challenge these kinds of statements? Is there not one honest ”journalist” in this country who would ask such pertinent questions? I know the answer: the ”narrative” matters much more than truth to these mind-conditioned leftist journos and the ‘diversity’ hires who of course have their own ethnic agenda.

And why is there seemingly not one ”conservative” politician who will speak up when Kasich or some other open borders shill spouts this propaganda?

And why does it seem that few to no bloggers ever question that particular bit of propaganda?

There are no children being ”torn” from their doting parents’ bosoms when these few token ‘deportations’ (more like free vacations back home, if the truth be told) happen.There is no way that Mexico or other Latin American countries would refuse to admit the whole family back into their home countries. The United States government is not going to hold ”anchor babies” here against their parents’ will just because they are supposedly ‘citizens’ of this country — which is by no means certain anyway.

The parents can take their large families back home (yes, HOME, to their place of origin and rightful place of residence) when they go. Nobody will stop them from keeping their families intact.

As for Kasich’s support for a so-called ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals, which is amnesty, whether he will call it that or not, some express surprise. But why should anyone be surprised? He has recent immigrant ancestry — either parent(s) or grandparents, depending upon which source you accept. Having recent immigrant origins almost always translates into support for mass immigration and lenient attitudes toward illegal immigration.

So now we have two Cubans, one an immigrant the other the son of immigrants, and an Eastern-European immigrant descendant running for president. Clearly the party bosses want immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, non-WASPs, as our only possible Republican choices. The globalist element of the GOP is definitely in charge.

 

Dual citizenship?

The official story about presidential aspirant Rafael ‘Ted’ Cruz is that, admittedly, he was born outside the United States, in Canada, of a Cuban father and an American expatriate mother.

The official story states that Cruz, though born in Canada, had dual citizenship, (American by his mother’s status, and Canadian by birth). Then, the story goes, he became a naturalized American. However I’ve read comments online saying that he never was naturalized because he already has American citizenship through his American citizen mother, thus had no need to be naturalized. But still the story has been that he was a ‘dual citizen’ until fairly recently, when he renounced his Canadian citizenship or his dual citizenship.

This article, which seems to present good information, says that Canada has not allowed dual citizenship since 1970.

“From May 22, 1868 until December 31, 1946, all residents of Canada were British subjects. There was no such thing as a Canadian citizen or Canadian citizenship until January 1, 1947.

From January 1, 1947 until February 15, 1977, Canadian law prohibited “dual citizenship.” Foreign parents giving birth to a child in Canada in 1970 were forced to choose between Canadian citizenship only, or citizenship in another country, and to declare that with Canadian officials at the time of birth. The parents of Ted Cruz chose and declared “Canadian citizenship” for Rafael Edward Cruz.”

So if Cruz is not a native-born citizen, nor a ‘natural-born’ citizen born of two citizen parents, nor even a dual citizen, (which would, if he were, be a disqualification for the presidency anyway, under our law), what is his status?

More to the point, what is our status as the citizens and rightful heirs of our forefathers (“ourselves and our posterity“) if we no longer care whether our potential presidents are eligible for the office under our Constitution and our traditions? I think fewer and fewer people, with each passing year, understand our laws and our traditions, and fewer still can be bothered to care about the laws, much less to seek out the knowledge for themselves. If we end up, from now on,  with ‘strangers’ governing us, being ruled over by people who are not of us, then I suppose our fate will be deserved.