Saturday, September 24, 2016

Friday, September 23, 2016

If terrorism were caused by an unwillingness to accept refugees, where are all the Christian terrorists?

What do the pope and President Obama have in common?
asks Benny Huang.
They both agree that the key to fighting Islamic terrorism is to import the maximum number of Muslim refugees as fast as possible. Yes, that’s really their solution.

Though estimates vary widely as to the exact proportion of terror-prone individuals among the refugees, nearly everyone acknowledges that there are at least some scattered throughout. Any rational person would see that this whole thing is analogous to Russian roulette—the more refugees the West brings in, the more likely we are to fall prey to terror attacks like the St. Cloud mall stabbing (perpetrated by a Somali Muslim refugee) or the New York/New Jersey bombings (perpetrated by an Afghan Muslim refugee) [not to mention the attacks in European cities such as Paris, Nice, and the Brussels airport].

Just don’t tell that to Pope Francis. At a conference on refugees, the pontiff spoke of hospitality as “our greatest security against hateful acts of terrorism.” Oh, I get it—if we’re not nice to them they’ll kill us. Somehow I’m reminded of the drone C3PO and his immortal words [to R2D2] when facing a brute who wished to dismember him: “Let the Wookie win.” That’s not Christian charity; it’s just plain old, garden variety cowardice.

The pope went further: “I encourage you to welcome refugees into your homes and communities, so that their first experience of Europe is not the traumatic experience of sleeping cold on the streets, but one of warm welcome.” Who exactly is sleeping on the streets? Many refugees in Europe are staying in luxury hotels. In Sweden they’ve even been given their own cruise ship. Others are sleeping in the apartments of citizens who were evicted to make room for refugees.
But seriously, do people turn to terrorism because they are “sleeping cold on the streets?” Hardly. This is just the pope’s defense mechanism. In order to avoid talking about Islamic jihad he tries to change the subject to homelessness and in the process excuses mayhem and violence. To hear him tell it, you’d think the refugees only kill their hosts because the hosts haven’t done enough to ease their transition. Disgusting.

The irony of the pope’s comments is that one of his own priests was attacked by a refugee whom he naively welcomed into his home. In August, Father Jos Vanderlee allowed an asylum seeker access to the rectory at his church in Belgium after the poor chap knocked on the door and asked to use the shower. The refugee then demanded money and lunged at the priest with a knife, who suffered injuries but survived. It was the European refugee crisis in microcosm—first the young Muslim refugee asked the aging European to have pity on him, then the refugee mugged and assaulted the bleeding heart who was foolish enough to let him in. Maybe it was the priest’s fault for not letting the refugee in faster, for not handing over his money, for not shining the refugee’s shoes, or for not fluffing the refugee’s pillow. Whatever you do, don’t blame the refugee and for heaven’s sake don’t blame Islam!

President Obama struck a similar chord in March of this year after ISIS terrorists killed 32 people in Brussels. In his weekly address, the stuffed shirt president blamed a “distorted view of Islam” for the attack and regurgitated bromides about staying true to “our values.” It was more of the same song and dance our leaders always go through whenever some guy shouting “Allahu Akbar” goes on a killing spree. They think they sound inspiring but really they just sound like jackasses. Obama even tossed in a warm fuzzy about America’s respect for “religious freedom” which undoubtedly came as a huge surprise to the Little Sisters of the Poor.

But it was President Obama’s solution to the problem that ought to make stomachs turn. His proposed response to the Brussels attacks was—you guessed it!—to double down on immigration from the Muslim world. “As we move forward in this fight, we have to wield another weapon alongside our airstrikes, our military, our counterterrorism work, and our diplomacy,” the president said. “And that’s the power of our example. Our openness to refugees fleeing ISIL’s violence.” No matter what the problem is, Obama’s solution is always to bring in more third world savages. Anything less would be letting the terrorists win—and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

The Left’s self-serving policy prescription to the refugee crisis is arrived at by reasoning backwards from their conclusion. It makes sense to them to repopulate the West with people who will become wards of the state, hate their adopted countries, and reject Judeo-Christian values if only because they and their descendants will overwhelm and transform the population already living there. Honestly, it’s not a bad strategy. Here in America, for example, Barack Obama is building a power base for his party that will stand firmly for many generations to come. Our country will be poorer, less free and more dangerous because of his policies, but at least his party will rule without challenge. Pope Francis’s motive is less clear, as the Islamization of Europe (and beyond) does not bode well for the Catholic Church. He must like being the media’s favorite pope more than having a flourishing flock.

Once the preferred conclusion has been determined, it’s easy to rationalize a path to get there. The Left constructs an argument that Muslims are only attacking us because they want to be part of our great nation—which no liberal really believes is great—but we spurn them. Ergo, the proper way to defeat Muslim terrorists is to allow more Muslims into our country, some percentage of whom will inevitably become terrorists themselves.

This theory simply does not stack up against the facts. If the antidote to Islamic terrorism is mass immigration from the Muslim world, why then is a once safe and orderly country like Germany becoming a terrorist focal point? In the past year they have admitted an astonishing 1.8 million refugees, mostly from Muslim countries. Their efforts have been Herculean, even if they have been in the service of a very misguided goal. Surely the plotting schemers at ISIS stand in awe of Germany’s tolerance and openness and will soon capitulate. There’s no sense in trying to goad those Germans into defending themselves, they just won’t do it! But alas, Germany’s strategy of plowing ahead with a dumb idea hasn’t given the terrorists a change of heart.

 … If terrorism were caused by an unwillingness to accept refugees, where are all the Christian terrorists? The Syrian Civil War has impacted Christians more than any other and yet they have faced discrimination when attempting to flee to other countries, including our own. An argument could be made that Christians should be given preference over Muslims because Christians are wearing targets on their backs in ISIS-held territory but as a matter of fact they aren’t even afforded equal treatment. According to an article in Christianity Today, the United States resettled 2,093 Muslims and 53 Christians displaced by the Syrian Civil War by November 2015. That means that Christians represented 2.5% of the refugees taken in by the US, though they represent roughly 5% of the Syrian population as a whole and 18% of all refugees trying to escape Syria. If we’re slamming the door in anyone’s faces, it’s Christians—and yet they don’t respond by killing us.

The real reason President Obama lectured us on being more open to Muslim immigration after the Brussels attack is because he had already made up his mind to go pedal to the metal with mass migration from the Middle East. Nothing was going to change his mind on that issue, not even a little blood in the streets. So he decided to reverse cause and effect, as leftist often do, claiming that Muslims only attack people when they feel rejected. The opposite is true—people reject Muslims because of their violence.

The West has done everything that its finger-wagging, multiculturalist elites have prescribed, and yet the killing continues. …

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Typical MSM Headline? "Clinton wants to move past email scandal, but voters can't seem to"

On its contents page, AOL links to the news stories with major developments regarding all three presidential candidates.
You don't even have to read the stories; just check out the headlines. That's right: Compare the AOL headlines for the news story on the Democrat candidate with those concerning the Republican and the Libertarian candidates.

Clinton wants to move past email scandal, but voters can't seem to

Like with Barack Obama, it's too bad that the American people let the Democrat leader down and that it cannot be dissolved for another to be elected.

Indeed, in the tradition of putting the onus on the (evil or at least unsportsmanlike) GOP — the ol' Republicans pounce angle — and/or on the (clueless) voters, Grant Suneson seems to bemoan that, given that Bill Clinton's enlightened wife wants to move forward, the clueless voters can't act like grown-ups and turn a blind eye to a largely irrelevant scandal in order to focus on more pertinent subjects.

And what might those pertinent subjects be? Well, one might be Trump Caught in Major Factual Flub Ahead of US Debate. Another might read, say, 2016 Candidate wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.

So what does a "Major … Flub" refer to? It's to the fact that Trump calls first US debate moderator a Democrat; records show otherwise. Indeed, NBC's Lester Holt, we learn, happens to be a registered Republican. Now, right there, we have one paramount sin, obviously of the unforgivable type. What a "Major … Flub" does not refer to is such things as being sneaky and secretive while lying about your four years at the head of one of the branches of government.

(By the way: An NBC reporter, a registered Republican? Would that be of the David Brooks variety?! And while we're at it, notice the weasel word "claim"; a fine verb, indeed, but hardly so when it's exclusively applicable to Republicans…)

Moreover, the Matt Picht story, Gary Johnson wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, is sold on the "contents" page anonymously (as 2016 Candidate wants to get rid of the Department of Homeland Security) — probably for no other reason than the third party candidate being not well enough known in person to command interest as well as clicks.

However, notice that the photo (clearly, of a man in a man's suit) and the subhead with twice the word "he" ("The presidential candidate said on Monday that if he's elected to the White House, he will shut down the federal department") obviates any chance that the candidate in question could be Hillary while implying somewhat that it might, just might, be The Donald.

Let's hope this can be attributed to nothing else but paranoia on this reviewer's part.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

The Four Key Facts that Nobody Tells You About Obama's Birth Certificate Issue

The one certain bet about the Barack Obama birth certificate issue over the past eight years (and counting) is that you do not know the four key issues involved or realize the extent of their importance.

First, a(n unfortunately) necessary disclaimer: Out of over 12,500 posts in the past 12 years, less than 10 on this blog have been about the so-called "Birther" issue (and in a couple of those, it was never even the main subject). That amounts to more than 99.92% of No Pasarán posts that do not treat Obama's birth Certificate in any way. Just so you know that you can hardly accuse (or dismiss) No Pasarán or any one of its webmasters of being associated with alleged nutjobs (at least not with regards to that issue).

Having put that out of the way, let's get started:

1) The "Birther" issue did not rise among Republicans, conservatives, and/or the unruly rubes of flyover country

(aka the bitter clingers to guns and religion; or, if you prefer, aka the basket of deplorable and irredeemable racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, and Islamophobes). It started with the campaign of Hillary Clinton in 2008, involving — you know the tune — the compassionate, intelligent, humanistic, forward-looking fellow members of Obama's (and the Clintons') Democrat Party.

2) Far from being totally racist, twisted, dangerous, and/or simply abnormal, the ideas brought up by the alleged "Birther" issue (whether leveled by a Democrat or a Republican) turn out to be pretty conventional and run-of-the-mill.
And, that, on a ho-hum issue of secondary importance (aka a distraction).

May we be allowed to examine this issue — what MSM outlets like The Economist want us to dismiss instantly and categorically as "the absurd “birther” controversy" — fairly, coolly, and dispassionately?

As I wrote a few years ago, in a lengthy, an in-depth, and a dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's youth:
 … Recall that Jesse Jackson tried running for president twice (in 1984 and 1988), and although he did not manage to become the Democratic Party's candidate, noone suggested that he was born abroad, and that for the simple reason that the Greenville, SC, native did not have a foreigner for a father (or for a mother) nor did he spend numerous years abroad. [Neither did Herman Cain or Ben Carson have to deal with such charges in their respective elections about a quarter century later, be it by Democrats or by the supporters of their GOP competitors.]
 … to believe that an American citizen (whatever the color of his skin) born to a foreign father who lived much of his childhood abroad may indeed have been born in a foreign country turns out not to be that far-fetched at all.

Indeed, the difference between the Truthers and the Birthers is that in the first case, we are being asked to believe that 1) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials were approached with a view to conspire to kill thousands of their fellow citizens, all (or most) of them innocent civilians, that 2) hundreds, if not thousands, of government officials agreed (apparently without a moment of hesitation) to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians, and that 3) none of these hundreds (thousands) of government officials has ever had a single, even fleeting feeling of remorse, or let the cat out of the bag, say while having too much to drink (no remorse?) during a Saturday outing to a local bar.

In the second case, we do not even have a conspiracy, but basically one single man hypothetically telling a falsehood — although it might even be termed a lie of omission — a lie about what offhand is a personal matter, but has turned into the only thing (allegedly) keeping him from power (Update: The New York Times' Double Standard on Conspiracy Theories).

Most damning of all, when you pause to think of it, the castigators' proof — if it can be called that — all lies in one fact (beyond the recently released certificate of live birth): and that fact is that Obama is a man, a person, a saint whose word should never be doubted, who is capable of no lying, no evil, no chicanery. If he tells you that, say, he is a Christian, then how dare you deny he is a religious man?! How dare you imply that he is a Muslim?! How dare you state he is a socialist?!

The person who ridicules the "Birther" theory as inane has no more proof than the born-in-Hawaii skeptic of where Obama was actually born [or didn't have any more proof until over two years into Obama's presidency]: his only argument — beyond the contention that the certificate of live birth and the newspaper clipping are incontrovertible proof that are not, can not be, fakes, bureaucratic mistakes, or misinterpretations — is the indisputable "truth" that Obama is someone whose honesty should not — should never — be questioned. (Whether in regards to his private life or to his political plans for America's future.)
[Update: As it happens, we would learn in 2012 (over four years after Obama was first a candidate and over three years after he entered the White House) that a "New Book Raises Questions About Obama's Memoir" (The New York Times' Michael Shear) and that, indeed, it turns out that Obama's memories were a "fantasy (like most of the President's own memoir)" (The Daily Mail). Adds Toby Harnden: "'Barack Obama: The Story' by David Maraniss catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book 'Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance'. The 641-page book punctures the carefully-crafted narrative of Obama’s life."]

When you think about it, it might be less worrying that some do not believe Obama was born in the United States (because of the circumstances linked to his entire childhood, much of it abroad) than that some are utterly convinced he must be born in the United States (because the Chicago pol is allegedly a sainted figure who can do, who can say no evil, who is incapable of or of lying or of falsifying documents). Again, remember the desires of some of his followers who want(ed) the constitution to be changed, only so Obama could win one election after another and end up, in one way or another and in the best of all possible outcomes, as (de facto if not de jure) president-for-life? Let me ask everybody a simple question: Who is the truly terrifying fanatic, here?
Moreover, in the past two or three election cycles, there have been (entirely valid) questions about the place of birth of… (get this) white male Republican candidates!

Imagine, if in 2008, someone raised questions about John McCain, pointing out that he spent a lot of his youth outside the United States. Indeed, it turns out that the senator from Arizona was born in Panama. What if, in 2016, someone raised questions about Ted Cruz, pointing out that he seems to have spent a lot of his youth north of the border? And, indeed, it turns out that the senator from Texas was born in Canada. (Still, it turns out that both men qualified, or qualify, as natural-born citizens and thus as U.S. presidents — as, presumably would… Barack Obama (!), even if he indeed had been born abroad!)

There have been rumors that Obama may have attended college as a "foreign student" and that his book editor listed him as born in Kenya. Even if they are piddling issues, occasionally proven false, the point has nothing to with Obama per se. (As Breitbart states, "It is evidence — not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.") The point is that the mainstream media never bothered to devote even a minute to investigate the issue (or the strategy behind the different public personas); only new online media (Breitbart and Snopes) did so.
3) Here comes the kicker: the so-called "Birther" charge (whether brought by a Democrat or a Republican) was never a charge leveled primarily at a man called Barack Obama or, for that matter, against a member of a minority or a person of a particular race.

It was a charge against the media. 

Indeed, as in 2) above, the "birther" charge was, and is, an entirely justifiable charge against the mainstream media. It was never about birth certificates per se. It was about the double standards that the MSM demonstrate again and again, first, between a Republican and a Democrat, and, second, between the other members of the Donkey Party and the media's preferred (i.e., its "dream") candidate.

(See Instapundit for a myriad of examples of why Glenn Reynolds refers to reporters and journalists as Democrats with bylines; or, as I call them, the fellow travelers in the (self-serving) drama queen view of America and the world.)
Recall Hillary Clinton referring to the SNL sketch journalists asking "Barack" if he is comfortable and needs another pillow. Here was a candidate (whatever the color of his skin) with, again, a foreign father and with long years of his childhood spent abroad (oh, and by the way, running a campaign extolling transparency): why not have a reporter or two (briefly) ask this person to (quickly) prove his credentials for the Oval Office (once and for all) — y'know, in the process of challenging politicians on their merits)?

4) The fact that the "Birther" issue was an (entirely justifiable) attack (by a Democrat or a Republican) on the mainstream media offering undeniable proof of its double standards is the very reason that it was—deliberately—turned into a scandal of humongous proportions depicting unspeakable hatred spewed by vicious packs of deranged, loony, and fanatic Neanderthals.

It was not by accident that the title of my "lengthy, in-depth, and dispassionate examination of the facts, of the nutjobs, and of Obama's youth" was The JournoList Issue No One Is Bringing Up. The reason I keep referring to the "alleged" and to the "so-called" "Birther" issue in quotation marks is that it is an entirely fabricated story (or narrative, to use the MSM's preferred expression), by members of the mainstream media itself, with an entirely fabricated cast of nasty and dangerous villains, consisting of mobs of zealous trouble-makers and despicable enemies of the people. 

The ensuing pearl-clutching "omigod-don't-tell-us-that-you-are-one-of-those-racist-clods?!" attitude was, and is, in no way a defense of Obama or the occupant of the White House; it was, and it is, a defense of the mainstream media.

It was and is certainly not a gallant and high-principled attack on hate and bigotry, in defense of a minority member sitting in the White House.  

It was and is a shameful, a disgusting, and an un-American attempt to shut down debate by shaming anyone wishing to take a deeper look into the biggest single piece of evidence exposing the MSM's (bogus) credentials of neutrality and impartiality.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Jacques Julliard : Pour l'extrême gauche, tout est bon pour suggérer que les crimes ne sont pas des crimes, mais des conséquences

Aujourd'hui, le parti collabo naissant est d'extrême gauche
tempête Jacques Julliard (merci à Lucien Oulahbib), dont les paroles reflètent ce que vit le peuple américain depuis 8 ans (mais aux States, il s'agit du parti au pouvoir ainsi que d'un leader adulé à travers le monde).
C'est celui du «pas d'amalgame» à tous crins ; du «vivre ensemble» à tout prix ; c'est le parti de la psychiatrisation («une poignée de déséquilibrés»), de la contextualisation («des victimes du racisme ambiant»), de la diversion («les fruits du colonialisme») et de la banalisation («le burkini est un vêtement comme un autre»)...
Chaque fois que la France est menacée dans son existence et dans ses raisons d'être, il se forme dans ses marges un parti collabo. Bourguignons de la guerre de Cent Ans, frondeurs du début du règne de Louis XIV, émigrés de Coblence sous la Révolution, vichystes et pronazis de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. D'ordinaire, ce parti est d'extrême droite et se confond avec la réaction. Aujourd'hui, il est d'extrême gauche.

C'est le parti du «pas d'amalgame» à tous crins ; du «vivre ensemble» à tout prix ; de «la faute aux cathos» quand les islamistes égorgent ; c'est le parti de la minimisation («quelques actes isolés sans signification»), de la psychiatrisation («une poignée de déséquilibrés»), de la contextualisation («des victimes du racisme ambiant»), de la diversion («les fruits du colonialisme»), de la banalisation («le burkini est un vêtement comme un autre»). Tout est bon pour suggérer que ces crimes ne sont pas des crimes, mais des conséquences.

C'est surtout le parti de la France coupable. Cette façon de faire son procès quand l'ennemi la calomnie, cette manière de lui tirer dans le dos quand elle est attaquée de face ; ce chauvinisme inversé qui l'accable quand elle est affaiblie ne porte qu'un nom, quels qu'en soient les auteurs : lâcheté ! lâcheté !

Quand la France connut en 1940 les jours les plus noirs de son histoire, le parti de la soumission, avec à sa tête le maréchal Pétain, ne trouva qu'une explication : la France est dans le malheur parce que la France est coupable ! Coupable du Front populaire, coupable de son esprit de jouissance, coupable de son esprit d'insubordination.
>>> Retrouvez l'intégralité de cet éditorial dans