Terrorism is Only Secondarily a Foreign-Policy Issue

Articles like this one by the Christian Science Monitor usually involve the Conventional Wisdom types expressing surprise that after the Paris attacks, in a time of crisis, people are still flocking to Trump and not to the "moire serious" candidates such as Jeb or Marco (to be fair, Ted Cruz is also sometimes mentioned).

Whiole Greg Sargent does not express any surprise over it, he also to some extent misdiagnoses the problem as being entirely due to Trump's "strong man" image; that is, people care less about policy than about the fact he makes a big noise about it.

There is a more important point, though, that I think most people are not getting. Most pundits, and many politicians, insist on seeing the Paris attacks and terrorism in general as primarily an issue of foreign policy; we are being attacked by a foreign power and need to retaliate; we need to conquer the foreign power that is attacking us.

In reality, the problem is the enemy within; many western countries have large, unassimilated, and unassimilating Muslim populations. When we are told that most of the Paris attacks were carried out by French and Belgian nationals, the media try to distinguish them from immigrants in order to make us believe that the problem is our own people; in reality, what it proves is that the enemy has infiltrated us. But there is an importance to the distinction; it's not that immigrants are not dangerous; it is that the problem with Muslim immigrants is not merely one of whether individuals have terrorist ties, it is whether or not people of Muslim background are likely to become, in essence, fifth columnists in the future. In other words, there is an explicitly racial/cultural/religious angle to the political question of immigration, and more importantly, IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THERE TO BE A RACIAL/CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS ANGLE.

What we are getting from the "serious people" is that the primary solution here is to destroy ISIS and other radicals at the source and to remove their threat. While definitely this is a part of the war on terror, it is unclear whether this will accomplish anything as long as we are letting millions of Muslims into the West, many of whom share, if not the exact ideology of ISIS, ideologies of conquest that are just as deadly to western civilization.

And the problem here is that among the most ardent hawks are also those who most want vastly increase immigration (e.g. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Bob Corker, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush). The fact of the matter is, the most effective way "not to fight the terrorists here" is NOT TO BRING THEM HERE, and "fighting them over there" is a secondary tactic.

After 9/11, we were assured by all of the usual suspects that illegal aliens were "willing workers" and that we should distinguish between desperately needed low-pay farmworkers and people with bombs strapped to them or some such. The point being that controlling our borders was not a good way to keep terrorists out, so instead of course we ought to focus on fighting wars in the Middle East. Many came to feel that these wars at least in part served as a distraction to stop the public from demanding actual homeland security policies that dealt with the immigration angle. Being asked to have security guards look at you naked is not too high a price to pay for security, but not letting American corporations get foreign labor for a dollar less an hour is off the table.

What we are getting from Trump is someone who is talking about protecting the homeland first and foremost. He was talking about immigration before any of the other candidates made it a big deal. People sense that he is interested in avoiding Islamic terrorism via immigration policy to a greater extent than any other candidate, and therefore they flock to him, not to "serious" candidates like Rubio, whose Gang of Eight bill would have vastly increased immigration, including giving administrations far more leeway in granting refugee and asylum claims. Almost certainly the Gang of Eight bill would have brought more Muslims into the United States. So no one trusts Rubio. Similarly, Bush's love of immigrants over and above American citizens makes people distrust him on this issue.

In other words, Trump is dealing with the issue that most Americans think is most behind the terrorist attacks. Being a "serious candidate" means dealing primarily with an issue that most Americans think is at best a back-up to the primary issue and at worst a distraction. Hence Trump's success.

That is all.

Fighting Foreign Worker Expansion

The Obama Administration is proposing new regulations that could turn the F-1 Optional Training Program into backdoor H1B visas, allowing companies to undercut American workers. Comments can be submitted until November 18. The Stop Overreach website has a streamlined process for making comments. I would suggest emailing copies of your comments to you Senators and Congressman, and ask them to use their influence to turn the regulatory agency's ear. Here (in bold) is a sample of my email to Senator King including the original comment:

I recently submitted the following comment (tracking no. 1jz-8m8d-3dz9) to regulations.gov regarding ICEB-2015-0002-0011, Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant Students With STEM Degrees and CapGap Relief for All Eligible F-1 Students. I am opposed to expanding this program, which is being used as a backdoor H1B visa to allow companies to undercut America workers' wages. I ask that you use your influence as a Senator to help make certain that the regulatory agencies address my concerns. Thank you for your time.

[My Real Name]

Text of comment:

The Optional Practical Training program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign students for up to 1 year or up to 29 months in certain fields of study. The program was meant to provide foreign students with on-the-job training that would benefit them when they return to their home countries. Because of that, these students were exempted from paying payroll tax or being paid the prevailing wage. Instead, this proposed rule, which will extend the program for STEM students to 36 months, would create a bridge to a longer-term work visa and eventual green card. Given the prevailing wage exemption and the payroll tax exemption, this gives companies a direct incentive to hire foreign workers over U.S. workers. Not only does this hurt hard-working Americans, this is a direct violation of the foreign student's pledge when they received their student visa to leave the country upon graduation.

It's hard enough already for American workers, especially recent U.S. graduates, to find work, and this rule would make it even more difficult by adding unnecessary job competition to the mix. We have already heard about Disney using H1B visas to fire American workers in order to use foreign workers whom they can pay less. We should not be creating more ways for companies to undercut Americans.

I am sending a copy of this to my Representative (Chellie Pingree, ME-01) and to my Senators (Angus King and Susan Collins, ME). I believe that Congress ought to be consulted on a policy change such as this, and moreover that programs like this ought to require Congressional authorization, which was never obtained in the first place.

That is all.

Congressman a Democrat? How You Can Still Fight Against Ryan Becoming Speaker

Mickey Kaus is telling folks to inundate their Congressman with calls telling them they do not want Paul Ryan for Speaker.

It's a good strategy, and if it doesn't keep Ryan from the Speakership, it might at least get him to reduce his demands.

But what if your Congressman is a Democrat, and you don't see the point in calling politicians you are not constituents of?

Money is the best way I think to show your opinion. Give to them campaigns of Congressmen who have come out against Ryan. Although VDARE has expressed concerns that Webster may be wobbly on amnesty, at this point a vote for Webster is a vote against Ryan, so an endorsement of Webster is considered a good thing. Then post to their Facebook and Twitter feeds that you agave and why (and if there is a comment section on their "Donate" page, comment there as well).

People so far to give to:

Louie Gohmert (explains lack of support for Ryan)
Steve King (Endorsed Webster)
Ted Yoho (Ditto)
Walter Jones (backs Webster, and has blasted Ryan)
Thomas Massie (Massie Won't Back Ryan for Speaker)
Daniel Webster the guy running against Ryan.

There are others, but these are the ones I have noted and donated to so far. You can make your own list or donate to anyone against Ryan who is not on the list. As more opponents come out, I will try to add to the list, although I may not be able to donate personally to any more than these 6.

If you give, make certain to state on Facebook or Twitter that you gave and why (their pages ought to be accessible on their websites). This will send a message to other House members that you intend to help people who are against Ryan, which is as much influence as you probably can have outside your own district. It also might send the wobbly ones a message that you might help a primary challenger if they vote for Ryan.

That is all.

One Reason Why Trump's Kelly Comments Did Not Hurt Him

Because most people are less concerned with the blood coming out of Megyn Kelly's whatever than they are with the blood that came out of Kate Steinle's bullet wound.

That is all.

Question on Margin of Error

When we see a margin of error in a poll, is it really the same for any points within a poll? In other words, if a poll has a 3% margin of error, does that mean that someone who has 5% in the poll has a 95% chance of having between 2% and 8%, or is the 5% 3% only valid for someone who gets 50% in the poll? I am under the impression that the further away you are from 50%, the smaller the margin of error should be, but I am not certain about this.

Any statistic geeks want to explain it to me?

That is all.

Did Steve Sailer Column Inspire the "Cuckservative" Label?

Am I the only one who thought of this column when I first began to notice the words "cuckservative," "race-cuck," etc.?

I particularly like this line:

Do we even have the language anymore to articulate the concept of being personally cuckolded? Is the word “cuckold” even in current circulation?

Well, maybe it ought to be. And now it is being brought back.

That is all.

Huckabee and the Holocaust

I don't see what all of the brouhaha over Huckabee's comments about Obama leading the Jews to the ovens is about.

Huckabee's position is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will use it against Israel. Now, you can debate the merits of this belief. Personally, I don't think the Iranians will do it; they are evil, but they are not crazy.

This doesn't mean I want them to have nukes. It would probably lead to an arms race and get Iran a lot more influence over the Middle East. But I do not think they are Bond villains.

However, if you think they would use it against Israel, the comparison is perfectly apt. As I said, you can debate the merits of what Huckabee is suggesting. But if you think that Iran would nuke Israel if given a chance, then the comparison is quite apt. The only difference is that the deaths will be over a much smaller period of time.

I just don't see how comparing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians being vaporized and more civilians dying a slow agonizing death from radiation poisoning to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust.

That is all.

Cuckservatives Gotta Cuck

Interesting piece by "hateful Heretic" on the new term "Cuckservative."

In case you missed it, a "cuckservative" is a (normally establishment) conservative who wants to make conservatism friendly to multiculturalism and "anti-racist" (a code word for anti-white).

The good news is that the campaign has been noticed. Matt K. Lewis and Erick Erickson have both commented on it. They would not comment on it if they weren't worried it would affect people.

Join the Hashtag campaign on twitter: #cuckservative.

That is all.

Nigger.

The Hulk Hogan incident has reminded me of this earlier post about the Paula Deen incident.

It is said that if you want to know who is in control, figure out who you are not allowed to criticize. I might say, find out who you are not allowed to insult.

There has been a big brouhaha over making pictures of Mohammed as a way to stand up to Muslim terrorists.

Well, in Black-Run American, you are not allowed to criticize blacks, or to insult them.

If people are having their lives ruined because of perfectly natural statements made in private, it is time to once again defy the PC police so they don't nigger everything up, especially with the new Obama directive to niggerize all of the neighborhoods in America.

Nigger. I mean, that is all.

What to Do if You Get a Letter from Jeb's "Right to Rise" SuperPac Asking for Money

Don't throw it away (not if it is postage paid, anyway).

Instead, print out the following picture and mail it back, along with all of the paraphernalia that came with the letter to you:



That is all.

An Example of How Anti-Amnesty Activists Screw Up

24ahead.com often talks about how conservatives miss opportunities to discredit amnesty supporters by being stupid in their questions. To demonstrate, I wish to show you this article about a town meeting featuring Lindsey Graham and John McCain back in 2013 when they were promoting the "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill.

Graham, lying, told the crowd this:

“Who’s got the ‘Remember 1986’ truck out there?” Graham asked. “If we remember what we did not do in 1986 and get it done this time, there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration, and that’s how you get 70 votes (for the bill in the Senate).”

The attendee replied:

“With all due respect, you didn’t do the job in 1986 and I doubt very seriously that you’ll do the job again,” he said to applause.

John McCain shot back, again lying:

“All I can tell you is, sir, that we negotiated with every segment of America’s economy, and the religious side, and every other part of America, and all of them, literally without exception, are in support of this legislation.”

The thing is, there were several responses that would have hurt them much more.

Firstly, when Graham suggested that we "do what we didn't do in 1986," someone should have asked specific questions to discredit him, like these:

* Senator Graham, you say that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." Exactly what do you plan to do different to avoid another wave of illegal immigration?

At this point, if he answers anything that involves making legal immigration easier, the answer back ought to be something along the lines of: "If we wanted a massive increase in immigration, wouldn't we not care about illegal immigration?"

* Senator Graham, the main thing we did wrong in 1986 was give the illegal aliens legal status first, then schedule enforcement for later. Every report out currently says that you plan to give the illegal aliens legal status before increasing enforcement. Doesn't that undercut your plans to "avoid doing what we did in 1986?"

(The report (April 4 2013) came out earlier than the town meeting (April 29 2013, the Monday before the April 30 article)) - if there were a town meeting a few weeks later, after the bill had passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (or partway through markup), one could also have asked:

*Senator Graham, you claim that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." However, the main problem with the 1986 amnesty was that it put legalization before enforcement, and during committee markup, you helped to shoot down any amendments that would make legalization dependent on border security. Doesn't that mean you are trying to repeat the mistakes of 1986?

Admittedly, the third question would not have been possible at the town meeting, as it occurred priot to committee markup. But the first two questions could have been asked with the information that was already well-known. Doing so, and spreading a video of the resulting dissembling, would have hurt McCaion and Graham;'s credibility.

Secondly, McCain's statement that support of the Gang of Eight bill is unanimous is laughably ludicrous. One could have simply asked him:

* McCain, you say that every part of America is in support of the Gang of Eight legislation. Why don't you include the American Legion, which came out against your legislation back in February?

* McCain, you say that support for this bill is unanimous. However, it is well known that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was locked out of the negotiations over the bill, towards which they have expressed severe skepticism. Isn't it possible that you have manufactured unanimous agreement by deliberately avoiding meeting with anyone who disagrees?

With such inveterate liars, a little prior research and an ability to bring facts to bear would go a long way to changing the debate.

That is all.

Antisemitism and Antijaphetism - Two Sides of the Same Coin

This is a cartoon comparing antisemitism and antijaphetism. Antijaphetism refers to a prejudice against European Gentiles (white Gentiles). I am not the first to use the term. The etymology basically parallels that of antisemitism - whereas biblically, Jews are the sons of Shem (Semites), Europeans are the sons of Japheth (Japhetites or Japhites).

The man on the left is a white Gentile, accusing Jews of assaulting white women, general greed and avarice, and of controlling the U.S. government. He denies the Holocaust, using the term "Holohoax" and "Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupied Government). The man on the right is Jewish, and is accusing white Gentiles of oppressing non-whites (a Latino, a black, and an Asian), and of general cruelty.

I do think that one of the major problems in our current society is antijaphetism, and that there is a lot of antijaphetism in the Jewish community - at least among the elite, those who have influence in our society. On the other hand, I think that responding to this with a general anger at Jews is counterproductive. The fact that Chuck Schumer or Sheldon Adelson often conform to antisemitic stereotypes ought not be held against Ben Stein, Don Feder, or Nicholas Stix.

That is all.

Cartoonist John Cole's Anti-American Act

After seeing this little scribble re-printed in my local newspaper, I decided to take action and make my own cartoon response:



It is time that all who criticize "inaction" on amnesty or who talk about a "do-nothing Congress" or who in other ways suggest that we owe illegal aliens something, or that there is some failure in not passing legislation to open our borders, are confronted with the evil of what they are really suggesting. Traitors to our nation ought not to be given a pass.

That is all.

Some #BlackLivesMatter more than others

This cartoon is about the Jamiel Shaw Jr. case; a black teenager who was killed by an illegal alien who should have been deported but was not. You can read about it here. His father, Jamiel Shaw Sr., spoke recently to Congress about the problem of illegal aliens, including criminals, not being deported by a government that doesn't care to enforce the law. Lest anyone think this is mere Obama-bashing, Shaw was killed when George W. Bush was President, and the problem is much bigger than just one man, although Obama has gone far beyond his predecessors.

The first woman is meant to be Sabrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, and the second Lesley McSpadden, Mike Brown's mother. The man in the final two panels is Jamiel Shaw Sr.

Lefty is the guy in the red shirt.

That is all.

The Ultra-Naive Rod Dreher

One problem with the conservative movement is that too many folks are determined to believe in the good will of the other side, no matter how much the other side shows their bad will.

This is especially a problem with The American Conservative, which has turned from a paleoconservative publication (Taki's and Unz.com seem to fill the gap) to essentially a wishy-washy pseudoconservative magazine that wants to appear reasonable.

This particular article by Rod Dreher, where he insists that it is bad form for Giuliani to suggest that Obama does not love America, when he clearly hates America, at least in its current form, shows his extreme unwillingness to face facts.

So here is my opinion of Rod in that article:



That is all.

If Immigration Restriction is Hypocritical, so Is Opposition to Rape

That is all.

Rod Dreher the Referee, or Why We Lose - Because We Fight to Lose, not to Win

In case the cartoon is unclear, the donkey has taken off his gloves and is hitting the elephant with a folded-up folding chair, like the ones against the wall.

After this post (I will be making a new post on the matter with a cartoon soon), I want to explain why, although I like Rod Dreher, I find him exasperating.

I think this post by Dreher sums it up. He thinks that whether or not he rule of judges over issues such as marriage gives correct decisions, legally or otherwise, socons are morally bound to follow the liberal interpretation of the Constitution and to try to fight them using the rules they determine. Combined with the first sentence of the last paragraph of this post:

Nothing left to do but pray that Anthony Kennedy will be charitable towards religious liberty when imposing the terms of our defeat.

We see a man who wants to lose, or at least who doesn't want to fight to win. He wants to be able to say he lost gracefully and played by the rules. That's fine in a game. In real life, other than real moral rules (as opposed to strictures your enemy wants to place on you) you do what it takes to win when survival is on the line.

That is all.

The Stop Amnesty Challenge Goes On

Blogger 24AheadDotCom has long advocated for a plan to stop amnesty that involves publicly discrediting the people pushing amnesty. The idea essentially is to make it untenable to support amnesty by forcing amnesty advocates to answer questions publicly (or be seen explicitly not doing so). Along with this is the idea of trying to find people who support an amnesty advocate, and discredit the advocate in their eyes.

One idea for this is the Stop Amnesty Challenge. The basic idea is to offer a prize to someone who asks a hard question to a prominent amnesty supporter on video. The goal is to make it a question that is resistant to glib responses, so that the amnesty supporter can't go into a pre-rehearsed answer and either looks like a fool or has to shut up or so obviously dissemble that they lose credibility. More importantly, the idea is to get people with influence (e.g., Ann Coulter) to do this.

Most importantly, the idea is to discredit amnesty supporters to those who support them. Bernie Sanders or Richard Trumka are not going to care that Breitbart is against amnesty or that Fox News is (if it actually were). They will care if Huffington Post readers demand that columnists explain why they support positions that hurt working Americans (or if Huffington Post columnists ask the question themselves).

The original idea for this used a cash prize of $350. While the original tilt bounty page for getting the prize has expired, I will continue the contest by agreeing to pay it personally. The prize is still offered to the anyone who will take it up (up to five people); I will pay the money upon confirmation that you have posted a video that meets the qualifications on YouTube. general qualifications are listed on 24ahead.com's old Tilt page here, in the "How Do I Claim the Bounty section. I will also award prizes for questions sasked of prominent non-politician amnesty advocates. Contact me to know if someone qualifies. I can be contacted on my Twitter account @Glaivester, my email Glaivester at Yahoo dot com, or by commenting on this post.

However, the general idea right now goes beyond this specific contest. We need in general to demand that people with influence ask politicians these tough questions, and that lobbying groups such as NumbersUSA start campaigns to do so. This is a good start.

So please, let's start participating in the Stop Amnesty Challenge today.

That is all.

Do I (a Former Charter Subscriber) Regret No Longer Subscribing to The American Conservative nor Donating to it?

No.

That is all.

Dancing on the Graves of Americans Killed by Illegal Immigrants

Here is my latest cartoon, lampooning Chuck Schumer. I'll grant that the labels are a little redundant and Uncle Sam is stating the obvious, but I figure that makes it a little more like the 19th century political cartoons beloved by history books.



That is all.

A Modest Suggestion

I suggest that anyone who defends Obama's bringing up the Crusades in his speech regarding ISIS should be asked, "would you mind if in giving a speech on Holocaust Remembrance Day, he insisted on juxtaposing the Holocaust with the firebombing of Dresden and the millions of Germans who died in the post-war forced relocations?"

That is all.

That's a Woman, Winston Smith!

It seems to me that the major goal of trans activism is not that people are so terribly concerned about something that affects a vanishingly small percentage of people. Rather, it is about forcing hoi polloi to submit to whatever the elites want to shove down our throats next.

 It is very much like the scene in 1984 where O'Brien forces Winston to lie about how many fingers he is holding up. So here is my cartoon on the subject. Note, there is full-frontal male... er... "female" nudity in the cartoon, because there is no way to make this point without it, but it is only in the form of a copy of Leonardo da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man..." er... "Vitruvian Woman," so it ought to be okay.

That is all.

Atlantea the Beautiful

Given how nice Ex-Army and Baloo have been about putting my cartoons on their blog, I feel I should reciprocate by plugging Baloo's cartoon blogs:

(1) Atlantea the Beautiful - focuses on Obama and his depredations against America in an allegorical way.

(2) Baloo's cartoon blog - mostly single-panel gag cartoons.

That is all.

Meanwhile, in Hell

Before I post this cartoon, let me say that I believe in a literal Hell. In fact, there are at least two literal Hells, the one where the unsaved go when they die (Sheol), and the one where they are cast at the Last Judgment (Gehenna). I also think that it is most likely that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and the people who killed them are literally in the first one right now (I hope that they believed on Jesus and were saved in the last moment, but it seems unlikely). So don't think that I take Hell lightly. But I believe that it is a reality to be acknowledged. Denying its reality will not save people. Acknowledging it at least provides the hope that people will seek a way to avoid it, and hopefully find the True Way, Jesus Christ.

Also understand that I am a Baptist who believes very strongly in the saved/unsaved paradigm. Although those who go to Hell do go there for their sins, avoiding sin is not what allows you to avoid going to Hell (because no one avoids sin perfectly, and "the best you can do" is not good enough). Moreover, once saved by Grace (by believing in Jesus - that is, acknowledging that Jesus Christ is God the Son, Who died to pay for your sins, and trusting in Him to save you through His death) no amount of sin will send you to Hell - although sin has other eternal consequences (loss of possible rewards in Heaven, missed opportunities to share the saving Gospel with others).

So I am not trying to imply that the specific wrongs I criticize were somehow the deciding factors in why I am portraying these people in Hell. Nor am I happy to see them there. Nonetheless, I believe one takes one's sin with him into Hell, so it is an appropriate place to confront them with their sins.

So here is my latest cartoon on the Charlie Hebdo massacre:



Translation was done using Google Translate with a little proofreading, so pardonez-moi if there are errors:

First panel: Top caption reads "Meanwhile, in Hell," "Charlie Hebdo" is portrayed on the left, specifically (left to right) Bernard "Tignous" Verlhac, Stephane "Charb" Charbonnier, and Georges Wolinski (Jean "Cabu" Cabut and Phillipe Honore, also killed in the attack, are left out, as are the non-cartoonists). "The killers," are on the right, specifically (left to right) Chérif Kouachi, Saïd Kouachi and Amedy Coulibaly. Charb ask one of the killers (presumably Cherif, in any case he is asking the question in the singular) "Does it bother you, using the freedoms of a society to destroy the foundations of the same society?"

Second panel: Cherif answers back, "That's funny, I was going to ask you the same thing."

Please if any of my readers know French, let me know how good the translation was.

That is all.

I Am Charles Martel

Below the break is my commentary on the Charlie Hebdo affair.  Given that we are supposed to show our courage by being willing to display offensive cartoons, I have decided to post the following cartoon, which is offensive to both Muslims and to those who are mourning Stephane Charbonnier.

You have been warned.

That is all.

Boehner Gives the Base a Salute

This is how I see John Boehner:

If you have a Republican Congressman, please call him and tell him to vote for Gohmert for Speaker:

Congressional contact information

That is all.