NYT: Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds

Well, what do you know? the "surge" in Immigration in the last decade is making America dumber and poorer. That can be the only message from the study of census data by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, discussed in the NY Times article yesterday (on page A20, of course).

Immigration "advocates" can caterwaul all they want to re-spin the data and prattle on about the long term benefits and successful assimilation of the great human tide from the 3rd world that is engulfing the U.S. (and Europe, too), but the hard facts cannot be denied. (BTW how does one become an "advocate" for immigration? Is there a special curriculum, at some college, somewhere? or does it just require a truly expanded conscience, with a dash of facile righteousness?) Overall, we are continuing to accumulate a large, indigestible, underclass with insatiable appetites for "services", and continuing pollution of American culture, because the stream of migrants is endless and self-sustaining ("pull migration", it is called).

Of all the disingenuous arguments made in defense of this great tide of immigration, the biggest lie is the one about how these ignorant, backward, peasants are taking jobs that "Americans don't want". Really? Jobs in construction (carpentry, masonry, electrical) that were at one time considered crafts controlled by the elite of the AFL? Americans don't want them while there is 40% unemployment among ghetto youth? If these inner city kids don't want these jobs, what on earth do they want, instead? Unfortunately, GM has drastically reduced its ranks of VPs, so job opportunities for the uneducated underclass are rather limited. It is inconceivable that, if the tide of human debris, this biomass that is drowning the U.S., is stemmed that a) the job prospects of the American underclass will not immediately improve; b) that many of these jobs that "Americans don't want" (except perhaps for the worst of the migrant farm labor jobs) cannot be upgraded and made "fit" for Americans, if necessary, or they cannot be vastly replaced by automation.

The logic of the pro-immigration people seems to be that this is an endless process (no limits on population growth? Are we to absorb all the human debris that the 3rd world can supply?): People come here to take jobs that "Americans don't want"; being a humane society, we are obligated to take care of their health, provide them with sustenance when necessary, educate their children, so that they can become Americans who reject jobs that "Americans don't want"; then, of course, we would need more immigrants to do jobs that "Americans don't want".

Is this not disingenuous? What is the true agenda behind this very blatant illogic? The Liberals are so sure they have this country's majority Whites on the moral ropes (cry racist loud enough and you can make them cringe and accept any ridiculous argument), that they no longer feel the need to even present coherent logic (let alone a defensible truth) for what they are trying to accomplish. Any fig leaf will do.

Gillian Gibbons-Welcome To Islam

It seems that Ms Gillian Gibbons got off lightly for daring to name a teddy bear Mohammad, at least according to American media and the BBC. Only 15 days in jail? Are Muslims going soft in defending the Prophet, "peace be upon him"? Why, before you know it, people will be discussing the truth and validity of his "message" and of the Koran itself.
Naaaah .....These demonstrations of fanaticism ensure the continued (even enthusiastic) obsequiousness of the Western media and "intelligentsia"

It restores one's faith in the barbaric nature of Islam and its adherents every time they react this way for any perceived "insult" to the the Prophet, "peace be upon him".

As for Ms Gillian Gibbons, serves her right; her and all other well meaning, woolly headed, people who try to provide help to, and to "engage" with, Muslims anywhere. If you lie down with dogs, expect to wake up with fleas - or a few lashes, at least.

Why Only Muslims?

Another article today in the NY Times by Andrea Elliott (she got a Pulitzer Prize for her puff pieces about an Imam spreading the “good word” on Islam to America), this time about Jihadists in Morocco with all the same questions about WHY? However, neither she nor any of the other pontificators on this subject ever ask the most pertinent (and obvious) questions, perhaps because the answers cannot support the reporters’ or publishers’ ideological needs: The need to spread “understanding” and “tolerance” and, above all, to avoid any grounds for criticism of “the other’s” culture. Questions that could be asked or topics discussed:

· All the subjects of this article come from very large families (eight to fourteen siblings) living on the very edge of poverty in overcrowded quarters, yet there are never any questions about why they feel they can/must have such large families that cannot be supported by the family unit and, in most cases, by the country’s economy. The result is an excess population that is foisted on more advanced countries (in this case, Spain) who are then excoriated for not accommodating this large, indigestible, alien influx. Or they are expendable biomass, suitable to be used as human bombs. What are these countries doing about controlling their populations? Of course, being Muslim countries, they cannot be questioned on this subject since this is “cultural” and has a hint of externally-imposed population control (“killing the Muslims”). One phenomenon of these large broods is the pride of many families in the “martyrdom” of their sons and daughters, most pronounced amongst the Palestinians. In countries where the population is vanishing, we treasure (some might say, worship) every child. We make rational decisions about how many children we can support, and the countries are then lectured about the need to take in the hordes for humanitarian and economic reasons. Westerners deny themselves large families so that they (or their governments) can be better able to support these unfortunates. And beware if you don’t accommodate them in the style to which they want to be accustomed, they are fully entitled to blow you up. Such idiocy.

· Above all the question to be asked is: Why only Muslims? Other cultures and societies are also overflowing with miserable people, but they don’t generally go around blowing up societies that they wish to join, or indulge in “jihad” and martyrdom for their faith (defenders of the Muslims always bring up the Tamils in Sri Lanka as a counter to the uniqueness of Muslim barbarity, but their mad actions are usually political assassination by extreme method). There are criminals galore in the human tide that is invading –unchallenged- the US and Europe, but only the Muslims are radicalized and politicized and primed to commit mass murder. What is there in Islam itself that produces this fanaticism? No other religion, cult or even political “ism” has “clerics” preaching this kind of violence. No other religion can extract from its source material rationales and justifications for this kind of barbarity in “defense of the faith”. The source of this mad behavior is Islam itself. No rationalization required. Just about every account of the individual Muslim madmen that “martyr” themselves (whether they are born Muslim or convert) seems to have the same progression: Somewhere along the line, the person changes his lifestyle (they seem to nearly always start out as drunkards, fornicators and/or drug addicts); then become “serious”; start attending a mosque (if we are unlucky it will be a “radical” mosque being supported by some Western government and the Saudis); pray 5 times a day; blah, blah, blah; THEN they meet up with some “radical cleric” (seems to be a lot of them around) and really go nuts. Perhaps the solution is simply to shut down all the mosques to prevent the perpetuation and spread of this hateful religion.

Face it: Islam is the problem. It is the mad cow disease of religions. When someone is seriously infected… well, we all know what happens to cows that get infected with mad cow disease.

C.I.A. Officer Admits Guilt Over Hezbollah Files

Nada Nadim Prouty, another wonderful addition to the US of A.

When will we ever learn that "immigrants" from Muslim countries are always dangerous ... toxic?

The DNA Age

Credit the NY Times for carrying a front page article on Sunday about the sensitive subject of DNA, race and intelligence. This is the ultimate taboo subject for the liberal intelligentsia in the West and it is out of character for the Times to discuss this in a fairly balanced manner. Of course, they did have the usual repeated warnings about the "danger" of the subject voiced by various scientists and sociologists. This is tolerable and acceptable even, in a balanced article (a rare thing in the NY Times on politically incorrect topics).

Of course, the issue is not whether and to what extent something called "intelligence" is genetically determined (probably it is to some extent, at least) or that "race" has a genetic basis; it was absurd to ever deny that. The issue is that the denial was for "sociological" and ideological reasons, not scientific ones.

It is unacceptable for so-called "knowledge elites" to put any field of scientific study out of bounds because the research may lead to "unacceptable" conclusions, a rationale that is given very frequently for opposition to research in the field or to even casual comments (see, for example, poor Dr. James Watson). It is especially disingenuous for liberals who insist on the absolute pursuit of truth, even if it upsets the sensibilities of more conservative people, as long as they are white and christian of course; NOT any member of a "protected" class, naturally.

Obama in Orbit

A column today in the NY Times by Mr. Roger Cohen (another deracinated Jew?) makes the case that Obama is the only candidate worthy of consideration because the 3rd world (especially Muslims) can "find itself" in him

This is the most ridiculous – even outrageous - column that Mr. Cohen has written recently (he also recently wrote that we all must subscribe to Al Jazeera - English, which presents, for Western audiences, a sanitized version of what it puts out in its Arabic service - the better to get first hand the rantings of Osama Bin Laden and his followers). By his logic, we must only elect a black (preferably Muslim) president from now on, to appease and to “bridge the chasm” between us and them. By his logic, the French did well in turning their government over to Petén and Laval after disturbing the “environment” by standing up to Nazi Germany. And, of course, the British would have done the right thing by turning to Oswald Mosley instead of that provocateur Churchill, after Chamberlain was found to be not docile enough to appease Hitler. This liberal notion that we have to engage the Muslims and show them contrition and understanding for the “sins of Bush” is at the very heart of why liberalism (at least its foreign policy) is, and will hopefully continue to be, a dying creed. All the liberal media pleas for “understanding”, “engagement” and “tolerance” of Muslim outrage will surely suffer the same fate as the earlier “progressive” pleas for understanding of and engagement with Communism (see, for example, the electoral fate of Henry Wallace and Adlai Stevenson).

It is the Muslims who must try to engage us and explain to us their outrageous and barbaric behavior, not the other way around.

It is precisely the “attributes” that this column praises in Barack Hussein Obama (“Kenyan father, a Kansan mother, an Indonesian stepfather, a childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia and impressionable experience of the Muslim world”) that make him unacceptable as a candidate for the presidency of the United States.

Justice for Jews from Arab Countries

An organization by the name of "Justice for Jews from Arab Countries" is trying to bring attention to the issue of Jews forced out of Arab countries before, during and after Israel's war of independence. A meeting was to be held in New York this week on this subject; naturally, not well covered by US media, as this would muddy up the great victimhood story of the Palestinians. The NY Times article on the planned meeting (no follow-up) was buried in the back pages, as was the original cause when first brought to the UN in January 1948 - and ever since. The story of the collusive activity of the Arab League back in 1947 (even before the official establishment of Israel) is buried, not ever to be resurrected by the western media (and definitely NOT by any Arab "investigative journalist").

This cause is just and must be pursued. Even if there may never be full compensation for the Jewish victims individually, the Jewish communities in the Muslim world were ancient, educated and relatively wealthy. They had extensive community assets and many historical/religious buildings, literature and artifacts. These must be accounted for and returned to the Jewish world, wherever and whenever possible.

A corollary to this story should be a comparison of the fate and current status of the Jewish and Palestinian refugees who left their respective homelands in nearly equal numbers.

The Arab world left their brethren to fester and suffer in refugee camps until the present time, wards of the United Nations, supported and sustained by the West. There they sit, having babies as their only discernable negative contribution to the world - that and elaborations of violence and terrorist "enterprise". They get sympathetic lip service from the Arabs, and money only to sustain violence and hatred. They are the poster children of victimology; the beloved of the fashionable Left, everywhere.

The Jewish refugees dispersed around the world and managed to prosper and thrive by their own efforts and the support of their fellow Jews, wherever they landed. The majority, of course, went to Israel where, after much hardship (and virtually no international non-Jewish support), they have successfully integrated themselves into Israeli society and gotten on with their lives.

It is emblematic of the ignorance of the western media about the history of the Middle East conflict that no one ever challenges the Arab and Iranian spokesmen about their constant assertions that Israel is essentially populated by European Jews in "compensation" for the Holocaust and that, in the extreme Hamas and Iranian view, these Jews must return to Europe so that "Palestine" can be returned to its rightful owners. In fact, Israel is now largely populated by Sephardi Jews, the refugees from the Arab world (and Iran) and their descendants. Where should they "return" to?

Barack Hussein Obama----REALLY?

Has this country completely lost it? Are we seriously considering this son of a foreign-student groupie (to put it kindly) and a Kenyan goatherd (not the greatest role model having, apparently, abandoned his family to return to the hills of Kenya under mysterious and unexplored circumstances), with a hidden Muslim background: his father AND stepfather; his grandmother in Kenya; his schooling in Indonesia; who knows what else.

According to the adulatory article in the Sunday NY Times (November 4, 2007), "Obama's supporters believe that his life story and the angle of vision it affords him hold out the possibility of curing the harm they would say we have done to ourselves ...."; also "The great project of the foreign-policy world in the last few years has been to think through a
'post-post-9/11 strategy,' ..." the bottom line of which is the standard Carterite, left-liberal, rubbish about how we must see the world through the eyes of others; that is, in a nut-shell, subvert America's interests and safety, if necessary, to make others like us. It was this post-Viet Nam mentality, as practiced by the 1st post-Viet Nam president, Carter, that gave us the Ayatollahs in Iran and all their progeny. The devil to these foreign policy establishment "experts", who look at Obama with dewy eyes, is of course Bush and his followers who say morally unambiguous things like "you are with us or you are against us". To the nuancers , it is America's responsibility to make nice with these people rather than the other way around (after all, they bombed us first). Even the Bushies have fallen for this idiocy, to some extent, by their pathetic attempts to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims (the Karen Hughes fiasco).

As always, the liberal "intelligentsia" let their ideology (wishful thinking, actually) replace common sense; thus Obama, with his colorful "back-story", is the new Great White Hope (pun intended) to bring about the longed-for Nirvana: The Brotherhood Of Man (maybe we need a new, more gender neutral, phrase now). Never mind the murkiness of the back-story; the idiocy and outright danger of Islam, to which he may still be sympathetic to an unknown extent. Compared to Obama, the "unclean" Sharpton may be the more reliable choice for a "president of color" that the liberals (and other deluded, well-meaning, white Americans) long for. At least we know what he wants out of it: what every self-respecting street hustler wants; money, power and self-aggrandizement.

Ultimately, one has to believe in the good sense (liberals might say "prejudice") of the great American white majority in keeping this "icon" out of any position of power in this country.

A plague on the politics of the state of Illinois for foisting this ivy league hustler on the nation.

You Go, Girl

Ann Coulter's column this week about The Anti-Defamation League is true if, as is her usual, slightly over the top. Along with the ADL, Ms Coulter mentions such organizations as the ACLU, which though she doesn't say it, are very heavily Jewish influenced and supported.

Jewish groups fall all over themselves to "engage" and accommodate Muslims and any other "3rd world" personage (e.g., any "African American" or "post-colonial" radical) in the immediate vicinity even to the ultimate destruction of the Jews in America and elsewhere.

Their eagerness to display liberal tolerance, open-mindedness and worship at the feet of the Goddess Diversity is the present day manifestation of the Jewish Ghetto mentality to appease the goy. They reserve their anger for the defeated and discredited white & European anti-Semites who have been pretty much discredited and de-fanged in the West; they are available, easy and even comical targets for the display of facile righteousness by Jews and their right-minded allies in the larger "educated" culture in the US and Europe.

Also, confronting Muslims and other fashionably-oppressed people would upset and embarrass this self-selected "intelligentsia" (Jews and secular Gentiles, alike) tremendously; it would put into question their deeply held faith and accepted beliefs about the nobility of the "oppressed"; the need to "engage" (chat-chat over ACTION at any cost); and the (obviously mistaken) ideas about the equal validity of all faiths and creeds, no matter how crude, violent and oppressive they might be (non-judgementalism writ LARGE).

More than any other groups, Jewish "progressive" lawyers have been in the forefront in the battle to defend, and give comfort to, Muslims accused of any anti-terrorist deed or thought. One wonders what Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and his followers think, in their hearts, about all the Jews rushing to defend them in court, for free. For people like these, who give no quarter in the cultural and religious battle that they are fighting, the concept of aiding anyone who is trying to destroy you (as they are here to do to all of us, and to the Jews in particular) this must be a true affirmation of the beneficence of Allah.

As for these "progressive" Jews..... The Sonnderkommandos were Jewish, too.