Enemy At The Gate

At last someone is telling the truth about the mass invasion in this country, euphemistically known as illegal immigration.  I quote:

"All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

You may think - and rightly so - that this declaration was spoken by President Trump, but it wasn't.  Nor was it spoken by President Reagan.  Nope.  It was uttered twenty-three years ago by none other than President William Jefferson Clinton during his State of the Union address on January, 24th, 1995. My, my, have the Democrats changed their position on the cultural invasion!

Click on the link and the next time you hear Chuck U. Shumer babble on about the wall, immigration, DACA, Dreamers and the other unconstitutional policies the Kenyan enacted by his unlawful executive orders, remember these words. But wait!  Clinton was president before the Democrat party morphed into a totally Marxist philosophy, going all-in for identity politics.  In his day, democrats were comparable to today's moderate Republicans.  Today, however, democrats support invasion - er, immigration - because they need a perpetual underclass to play the role of "victims" of the so-called Caucasian patriarchy.  Uneducated, low IQ, diseased people with no marketable skills from third world shit hole countries are perfect for that role, whether they be black, brown or grey. And they make perfect Democrat voters - for life!

Immigration - legal and otherwise - has been a problem since Ted Kennedy changed the United States immigration policy with his Immigration and  Nationality Act of 1965.  Prior to that, the US policy was the Quota system, which essentially limited immigration to Western Europe.  Intelligent, educated white people with marketable skills were more than welcomed here.  But Kennedy saw the need for a permanent underclass, and was able to get his bill enacted by President John Kennedy, his brother.  See how that works?  Today we are dealing with nearly 36 million aliens, by some counts, most of whom are not productive in any legal sense, and who refuse to assimilate into our Western culture.  That means one-third of the US population is working hard to undermine and destroy the United States.  That's the bottom line, after all the weepy emotionalism is swept away. 

These people in our country are a problem.  And it's an existential one.  It's not about race.  It's not about social status.  It's about applying existing US law.  It's about neutralizing the threat of their planned destruction of the American culture and way of life.

Concerning illegals, we must identify, arraign and deport them all.  Literally with extreme prejudice.  Concerning legals, we must identify those here now, and take in only those who can and will contribute to the American experience, not tear it down.

And if Congress won't act, We the People must.  And I believe we will.

The End of Racism

At last!  The left has officially worn out the epithet "You're a racist!"  Every day, a thousand times, someone is called a racist.  It's a curse that's been over used, over blown, inappropriately applied and now rendered completely meaningless.  It's like "awesome," or one of my favorites,"gnarly," idioms finally cast onto the ash heap of meaningless rhetoric drivel.  And not a moment too soon.  

But what does it mean, in a larger sense, "racist," this neutered epithet?  Have people really rid themselves of all biases pertaining to race?  Not at all.  And, I dare say, nor should they.  People of all races, cultures and nationalities are essentially tribal in their outlook.  They are me. Or non sunt mei - they are not me.  One who is conscious of one's own origins is naturally wary of outsiders; one should be diligently discriminating in that regard. That's not a bad thing in of itself.  It's a natural component of our survival instinct.  Consider that your brain, when confronting a stranger, is making nanosecond evaluations to ensure your survival.  Is he different?  Is he dangerous?  And the decision tree falls away from that point on.  If yes, then appropriate measures are taken.  If no, none are.  If yes, but no, then a different set of possible measures are considered.  This mechanism in the brain happens pretty fast, so most people aren't even consciously aware they're doing it.   But that mid-brain analysis is there to keep you safe. And, it has nothing to do with hate.  

Basic decision tree

It has to do with recognizing differences, and reacting accordingly.  That's called discrimination.  Survival.  The left continually seeks to dehumanize people in any way it can.  Attempting to homogenize us all into a single artificial norm is one way to that end.  But they coat this homogenization with an emotional appeal that's hard to resist.  Aw, poor them.   They deserve better.  Come on over here, we accept you.

And that can be - and certainly is - exceedingly dangerous when applied to our immigration policy.  Some migrants truly are in need, most seek other goals. But to stand up and question the very real consequences of the unchecked influx of immigrants - who are assuredly non sunt mei -  is a rational act, and has nothing whatever to do with hate.  Or racism.  It's just another leftist-progressive con job.

Perhaps if we understand that we're being played by the left with its endless application of labels, like racist, intolerant, homophobic, islamaphobic, and countless others, we may be able to ignore those epithets, and think clearly and rationally about our survival. Nature programmed us this way for a reason.  The left's philosophies - which have never been right - claim we've evolved beyond that primal programming.  

I seriously doubt that.  It's deeply embedded in pure instinct, and denying that will result in a bad end.

Vicious Friends To The End

Well, well, well.  A new book is out.  In it are allegations about Donald Trump's temperament and intellect.  Same old stuff, warmed over.  Also in it are new allegations about who may be the White House leaker, the stirrer of political pots.  All eyes look to Steve Bannon.  "A moron," says Bannon of Trump.  "Sloppy Steve," tweets Trump.  Uh oh.  Seems like King Arthur is at odds with his Sir Lancelot.  Powerful men, both leaders in a tsunami political movement, butting heads like alpha rams in rutting season.  The MSM, delighted to observe the public reaction to Wolff's disingenuous ramblings, cry, "Hooray!  A rift in the movement!  Trump is undone!"

Nonsense.  Not so fast.  In every great undertaking, there have been failures in communication and policies in the chain of command, from ancient Greece (note Alexander's conquests) to Rome (note Julius Caesar's reforms), even into the early elections in the United Sates (note the Adams/Jefferson rift), and right up to the present age.  Consider that Winston Churchill fought tooth and nail against his own King and Parliament to dissuade them from a policy of appeasement with Nazi Germany.  Neville Chamberlain advised friend and foe alike that German ambitions were contained and it wouldn't attack the UK.  Germany wasn't, of course, and did.  History proved Churchill right, and Germany and the United Kingdom would be engaged again in war with each other.

Another example of rifts between players on the same team was the infamous public flogging of General George Patton.  Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander, Allied Forces, and General George Patton was Commander of the 3rd, 7th and 15 United States Armies at various times.  He defeated Rommel in North Africa, invaded and liberated Sicily, and was most famous for his push through France and Germany with the US 3rd Army, resulting in the liberation of Berlin.  Yet he and Ike were at odds for most of the war.  Both wanted to win, but had differing methods.  Ike was the commander of a force of individual nations - the Allies - and had to massage national hubris and personal egos for the duration of the war.  In contrast, Patton was a proponent of hard driving, never slowing offensives that, especially in Europe in 1944, probably shortened the war considerably.  At the edge of Berlin, Ike slowed Patton's 3rd Army's advance, so that the Soviets could be the first to enter Berlin.  That was a political move of which Patton disapproved entirely.  Patton was vocal about his opinions, and felt that the US should keep rolling eastward, and defeat Russian forces as well.  Hey, as long as I've got the Army over here and all.  Ike and the media were completely aghast over that.  History may well have shown that Patton was probably right about his trepidation about the USSR.  Promoted, demoted, and hushed, Patton was still admired by both his men and by the public at large, despite the Pentagon's and media's attempt to portray him as a arrogant, war-mongering self-serving braggart.  But at the end of the day, it was George Patton and the American 3rd Army that liberated Europe.  Ike went on to become the United States' 34th President, and Patton died from injuries he sustained in a suspicious automobile crash months later in December 1945.

So it may be wise to keep in perspective this so-called divide between Bannon and Trump.  It is probably real, arising from two forceful personalities dedicated to making America great again, yet each in their own way.  Trump, like Eisenhower has many factions to appease.  Bannon, like Patton, sees only an enemy in tyrannical globalism that must be resoundingly defeated.  

As history shows us time and time again, heads may butt, punches may be thrown, but at the end of the day, hands will be shaken, and a victory will be had.  And this story hasn't come to its end, yet.  Stay tuned.