I never saw this

Of course insurrection is a thing.  It's a crime.  An actual crime.  Like robbing a bank or stealing a car.  And if you commit those crimes, you're charged with, and perhaps found guilty of, committing those crimes.  But you aren't a car thief because someone calls you a car thief. Or a bank robber simply because media talking points say you are.  Or a racist just because someone says you're a racist. It has to be officially proven for it to stick, at least on this side of the Gulags.  

With that said, it doesn't appear they have actually demonstrated that the January 6th protests and riots were an insurrection, despite media narratives to the contrary.  To me, and many of those in that 'billions', it was yet another riot in a year of riots. This one directed at liberals in many ways that riots following Trump's election in 2016 were directed at conservatives.  

Or just like the riots and protests of 2020 that were aimed at anything American in general, at government buildings, at Christian churches, at religious art featuring white people, or businesses and residential areas, injuring and even killing innocents*, and destroying much property.   And all of that after four years of pundits, activists and even journalists declaring the 2016 election a fraud, stolen, corrupted, illegal, and in need of being overturned by hook or by crook. 

But I didn't see an insurrection on January 6th, 2020, at least not yet. I'm waiting for the verdict.  For I vehemently reject the modern Left's insistence that things like due process, presumption of innocence or burden of proof are antiquated ideals once used to keep the oppressed down, and therefore worthy of being overhauled or eliminated.  

If it is found to be legally true, that by the law an actual insurrection did take place, and a court has ruled so, then I'll concede the possibility at least.  As far as I know, however, that hasn't happened yet, at least with the riot as a whole.  Much less that Donald Trump has been found legally guilty of being linked to such a crime.  

*I'll assume at least some of those 25 said to have been killed during the 2020 riots were killed due to the 2020 riots.  I recently had a debate with deacon and film critic Steven Greydanus who challenged that assumption, and suggested that just because they died during the riots doesn't mean they died because of the riots.  If that is true for some, I have a hard time believing all of them were only coincidently killed in ways unrelated to the riots and protests in which they were killed.  

Because it is not climate

That's why.  

So yesterday we were supposed to have a dusting of snow.  The temperatures would drop, some mix of rain and snow, perhaps a little dusting.  And that was that.  As late as yesterday morning's weather forecasts on the morning news.  Yet this is what it looked like this morning: 

Not exactly a dusting.  And because we weren't ready, much of the prep work hadn't been done.  My sons noted that they didn't issue any type of travel advisory until after the evening news, when the majority of the snow had passed.   

This morning, however, the weather forecaster did address the staggering fail when it came to the forecast.  Which is only one of many  in recent months.  We've noticed that it does seem they have been missing the forecasts more than usual over the last year or so. 

The meteorologist said, at the end of the day, it's weather.  Weather is complicated and not always easy to predict. Plus it's based on models.  Models provide many things, but it isn't some magical spell.  In this case, only one model showed anything close to what happened.  All other models showed what all of the local stations predicted.  A light snowfall if anything at all. 

I had to chuckle.  After all, much of the climate change narrative is based on models.  But apparently those models predicting what the entire global climate will be in a hundred years are just spot on perfect in their accuracy.  As opposed to models that predict the daily weather in a given location.  How can we predict what will happen outside our windows later today?  It isn't like predicting the entire planet's climate a hundred years from now!  Apparently that's as easy as pie. 

Always remember: A forecast of 79 degrees means excessive heat watch.  Modern meteorology in a nutshell

People like Dawn Eden and The Atlantic's Graeme Wood continue to miss the point

 Here:

Here is the article she references.

The problem isn't that Palestinians, pro-Palestinian protesters, leftists, and various anti-white, anti-Western activists are saying there is a moral equivalency between Israel's IDF and  Hamas.  The problem is they're saying there is no moral equivalency because Israel and IDL are the only bad guys.  By virtue of the Left's slick 'Sanctified Oppressed Class v. Unforgivable Oppressor Class' template, Israel is the oppressor.  Therefore, Hamas is merely a bunch of rough around the edges freedom fighters for the blessed oppressed.  Because for the Left, as part of its anti-Western strategy, to be the Oppressor means you deserve nothing that you have and everything you'll get.  And anything connected to the Western Tradition is always the Oppressor.  

It's not hard to see in Mr. Wood's archives that he drinks deeply from the 'Bad West and its fascist defenders' well that makes such idiotic narratives possible.  Same with Ms. Eden.  Her alliance with those dividing the world between the heroic oppressed and the fascist loving cheerleaders of the Oppressors has become more obvious with each passing month.

But now Israel and all those Israeli Jews are the establishment Oppressors.  They are the baddies. Jews in America might still be worth something when it comes to trotting out endless reminders of antisemitism in Europe and America or the Christian Church.  But in Israel?  Not so much.  And as the Left throws out old Western ideals of freedom of speech, religious liberty, forgiveness, reconciliation and tolerance, we see what happens next.  The oppressor has got to go one way or another, along with anyone defending the Oppressor in any way - and that includes Jews.  

So I ask them - what the hell did they expect?  We've had about three generations of this little dichotomy being pounded into the heads of our youth.  That is, the world divided into the Oppressed versus the Oppressors.  By the time my kids were in school, that was the canvas upon which their world was painted.  There was still some lag over from the past.  For instance, they still learned that we need to become a color blind society, to put race behind us, and never, ever judge based on skin color no matter what.  But much of the 'Unforgivable Oppressing West, Otherwise Beautiful Oppressed' narrative was in full swing.  Along with celebrating the growing hatred, merciless condemnation, calls for the erasing and extermination of reprobate sinners and deplorables and anyone else forever damned for the label Oppressor. 

In addition, since Covid and the 2020 BLM riots, we've seen yet another old liberal mantra die and die fast.  That is, the much tired out and endlessly repeated claim that 'violence is never the answer.'  Well, since 2020, it's become a damn good answer, if you're on the side of the Oppressed against the Oppressor. 

And as these things pile up - divide the world, no mercy for the villains, all defining sins of the oppressors, erase the irredeemable, darn right violence against the oppressor establishment - you should be able to do the basic math.  Even now, while the pro-Hamas/anti-Israel side has polished its act up a bit and ditched the 'gas the Jews' chants (though I'm still seeing signs that read "Any means necessary"), the template meant to destroy the West is ironclad.  That is, Israel is part of the West, it is therefore the irredeemable Oppressor, therefore it must go the way of the Confederate flag, the Columbus Statue, the Robert E. Lee monument, the Jefferson memorial, and anything of the Oppressor that can't be cleansed of its unforgivable sins.

People like Dawn Eden, or any Jewish liberals today, have sown the wind, and they are only now beginning to realize that the whirlwind is around the corner.  Some are beginning to wake up, but what that means I don't know.  Will they put the brakes on and begin questioning this thing with which they've aligned for so many years?  Will they think if they can just make them stop calling for killing Jews this time, it will fix things for good?  I don't know.  The infinite capacity for humans to be stupid is one of our most endearing qualities.  

Like the lost tales from another world

Is what I thought of when I saw the tragic story of a woman stabbed to death in Detroit.  She was Jewish, and was Synagogue president.  From the beginning, the police have stated there is no clear motive behind the killing.  This latest article, from the Detroit Free Press, reports that the police are still saying there is no evidence that antisemitism was behind the attack.  

There is nothing at all wrong with this.  In a sane, pre-insanity of the Obama era world, this is how the press and the police handle it.  Before the dark ages of the Hate Crime era.  A human being has been slain.  We leave it at mourning, regret, prayers for the victim and family, and hope for justice. We are still gathering information and not leaping to conclusions.  Motives are not know, and are not speculated about.  Nothing else is being linked to it.  Nothing about antisemitism on a national stage, or even across Detroit.  No groups of people are suspect.  Again, like a time capsule from the age of sanity.

Of course we know why.  Multiple attacks and crimes against the Jewish community have happened since the beginning of the Israeli-Hamas war.  Twice Hamas has called upon global outrage and demonstrations.  Protests erupted immediately after the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.  While some were fine and peaceful, a staggering number - including around college campuses across the West - cheered what Hamas did, with some calling for more (that is, slaughter of Israelis).  And some Palestinian and pro-Palestinian protesters, along with BLM outlets and leftwing socialists, made it clear seeing more of what Hamas did in that first attack was wanted and demanded.  A few went so far as adding variations on 'Gas the Jews' to make sure we see it's not just because of Israel or Israelis, but because of Jew hate.  And all from not white, not MAGA, not GOP, not Red State, not Christian, not conservative types. 

Hence the sudden wave of 'let's not be hasty' where attacks on synagogues, Jewish individuals, and even murderers of Jews are concerned.  Again, absolutely nothing wrong with this level of restraint from law enforcement, the Jewish community, the ADL, and the press.  It's how it should be done.  There is, however, everything wrong with why they are suddenly doing it this way, and not the way we've seen for the last too many years.  

That is, immediately implying hate crime, saturating the press with stories of increased hate crimes against the Jewish community and all minorities, impugning rightwing and conservative types as antisemitic white nationalists who are to blame, and making sure to drudge up yet another wave of stories bringing up Nazis, Germany, antisemitism in the West, the Church's history, bigotry among white Christians, America as a 400 year slave state, and virtually anything to do with the sins of the last thousand years of Western civilization. 

The worst thing is, it isn't just the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust that is causing this sudden shift in coverage.  It's because of who slaughtered the Jews and who has made it clear they're willing to support more of the same.  That's the bad part.  It breaks the sacred narrative of the modern Left.  And no amount of slaughtering or protecting Jews will ever be more important to modern progressivism than defending that all important - and demonstrably false - narrative. 

Why this does not work

My general dislike of Internet memes is well documented.  Yes, sometimes they hit home and make more sense than what is taught in our universities or reported in our news media nowadays.  On the whole, however, at best they're a poor man's editorial cartoon, but without the wit. At worst they're used to attack, lie or otherwise misrepresent issues and people.  

So I saw this pass by at Facebook:

Yeah, I get it.  But here's the point.  First, I know it's a joke.  I get jokes. I have a sense of humor.  But that's falling into the pit of sin that somehow we'll fight the Left by adopting its elevation of pride as virtue and biblical ethics as dependent upon one's group identity.  That's one problem.

The other problem?  Pride in being straight?  That's like saying pride in gravity.  To imagine there is some alternative to being straight that being straight has to vie with is already conceding the position to the opposition.  It's playing their game, as if Straight is the option I'm proud of, as opposed to that other legitimate option they're proud of.

I know.  I'm being a poo-poo.  But you get my point.  I've said one way in which Christians, as well as the broader world of conservatism in general, have lost has been repeatedly conceding the high ground with a host of issues by accepting the rules, the premises, even the broader narratives of the Left.  

That would be like playing a game of Monopoly with someone who insists on writing their own rules.   So they demand the game begins with them having all the money, all the properties, railroads and unities, and hotels on every monopoly - and you say, OK, that's fair, let's play.  I'll bet you lose. And so those who would resist the Left by conceding the Left so much ground have lost, and lost, and lost again. 

That's why I'd wager LGTBQ activists are more than happy with something like this.  Not only can they shoot it down, as many FB commenters did, insisting with science and laboratories we have all we need to get gay people pregnant today. But in their guts, they know somehow we're handing them a tremendous amount of high ground in the process by accepting their basic premises. 

Because America is a racist nation

We have seen endless numbers of non-whites giving everything and, sometimes, risking everything to come here for decades.  Makes perfect sense to me.  If I cleaved unto the 90 ft. Left at least.  Those who don't bow before the 90 ft. idol are often infected with a deplorable amount of sanity and can see such a story and conclude the carefully crafted media narrative about a 400 year old racist Nazi state called America might just be slightly askew of the facts. 

Democrats blaming Trump for our divided nation

Is like Ernest T. Bass blaming Sheriff Taylor for all the broken windows in Mayberry.  

Just a thought as I watched one newscast after another this morning reporting on today's inauguration, and parroting 100% the Left's perspective that our divisions are because of Trump.  

I've watched that little trick for more than 30 years.  The Left's whole 'Now that we've won, we want unity ... so stop being divisive and admit you're a Nazi' shtick has more than worn thin.  The only thing worse is that it's now accepted dogma by not only the press, but almost everyone, including our religious and even conservative leadership. 

It's either cowardliness or stupidity, I'm not sure which.  But either way, it doesn't bode well for the coming era. 

How MLK beat #MeToo

Easy.  The press ignored the story.  Let's face it, if someone - celebrated biographer or not - had published an article finding that Ronald Reagan, or Nixon, or Eisenhower, or Washington, or Teddy Roosevelt, or anyone may have been involved in sexual assault, you can bet your bottom dollar it would be 24/7 coverage.  Heck, it would be 25/8.  We'd see outrage, protests, calls to pull down portraits or statues, demolish Mount Rushmore, pull books, take down art, you name it.  The press would be all over it, with series, special reports, round tables, documentaries.  That would be it.

But MLK?  Aside from a smattering of stories, mostly print, and generally of the 'greedy guy gunning for money' or 'FBI were racists making it up', there was scant little mentioned, if anything at all.  This one was a rare exception.  I've seen nothing on the network news shows.  I don't know if it's been covered on cable news, but I've not heard anything.

This is not, remember, bringing up the almost universally accepted notion that MLK was doing more than just planning marches in those hotel rooms.  This revelation is from a man who wrote one of the celebrated hagiographies of MLK at a time when he was fast becoming the new Jesus for a post-Christian America.  This is a revelation from a man who lamented what he revealed, wished it wasn't true.  Nonetheless he concluded that not only was MLK quite the fraternizer, but he was also involved in what any era would have considered sexual assault, much less our modern #MeToo era.

But no biggie.  The story is more or less fading already.  The press sat on it, as it does anything deemed non-beneficial to The Narrative.  Even Fox and other outlets didn't go there much that I'm aware of.  Perhaps they were afraid that accusations of racism would have abounded.  The rest of the MSM simply swept it under the rug.

Does that hurt the cause of women?  Does it hurt women who have been legitimately assaulted?  Does it matter?  Do we care?  We should know by now that the Left doesn't seem to care about victimized minorities as much as it cares to exploit them.  If their suffering hurts the cause?  Screw'em.

As for me, the story should be discussed, but it isn't a deal breaker. I think a person is measured by the sum total of all they are, not a single issue or even a single sin deemed unforgivable by the modern State.  As a Christian, I gladly proclaim that sins are forgivable, and thus we should never elevate one or another to the 'sin that should never be forgiven'.  Whatever MLK did would need to be balanced by the sum total of all he did and all he was.

But that's not even the argument the press made (how could they, since modern Identity Politics is predicated on a growing list of unforgivable sins based on skin color, gender, and other demographic qualifiers?).  The press simply ignored, suppressed, swept under and moved on.  A reminder that we have no clue what is really going on in the world.  Madagascar could sink into the ocean, and we'd only know it if the press decided to say something.  And that means the press would only mention it if it served the purposes of the press to begin with.

If a Republican called for a military coup

All hell would be breaking lose.  And yet I've not heard the press mention it. Yet again, the barking mad crazy of the anti-Trump lemming brigade shows an inexplicable capacity for making the worst of Trump's blunders look brilliant and sane by comparison.

As I'm sure we can all see by now, the Left all but seems to be calling for war with Russia.  At best they are screaming that we've been in a Cold War with Russia all along.  Except for October 22, 2012, when Russia was no big deal.  A year ago, they were screaming nuclear war with North Korea.  And now you have a Democratic congressman calling for a military coup against the president:

When I was young, I always chuckled about the GOP's Hollywood reputation of being the warmongers.  In my college days, that was the pop culture narrative.  It was always the Republicans itching for war; gunning to invade the nations of the world for the American Way.  The Democrats only and always wanted peace, love and John Lennon songs.

And yet, almost every major war and conflict of the 20th century happened - drum roll please - during a Democratic administration.  WWI: Wilson (D).  WWII: Roosevelt (D).  Korea:  Truman (D).  Vietnam: Kennedy/Johnson (D/D).  Our attack on Serbia: Clinton (D).

Only the first Gulf War (and, if you insist, our invasion of Grenada) occurred during a GOP administration.  Otherwise, the wars of the last century hang on the Democratic name tag.  Just thought I'd throw that out there since much of the progressive movement benefits by insisting it's not what we do, it's what we say that matters.  They say they want peace and Republicans want war, so it's true.  Please ignore reality since that doesn't count.

Therefore when you have them come out an actually say 'I want the military to step in and do something about this president', you had best sit up and pay attention.  For the Left, it's all about the words.

HT: The American Catholic.

Meanwhile the Telford Child Sex Scandal continues to pick up steam

You can be forgiven if you haven't heard of this.  I'll admit I hadn't heard of it until a month or so ago.  Unlike the Priest Abuse Scandal, which saw the media descend on the Church like soldiers hitting the beaches at Normandy, and occupied headlines, front pages, special broadcasts, weekly series, A-list Hollywood productions, and endless lawsuits, this has remained under the radar.

Cosmic coincidence no doubt. Whether the Left really believes or doesn't believe its own propaganda, that only the Christian West and America are evil and everyone else is lovely, I don't know. If Leftists think that, once they've ground Christian civilization to dust, they'll just turn on the next monotheistic bad guys and do the same to them, I'm not sure.

Whatever it is, Muslims can do and say and advocate almost anything and receive barely a wrist slap from the Left.  Most often, the Left bends over backwards to avoid discussing or even speaking of such things.  Sometimes they'll just turn things upside down and find a way to blame the Western Christian tradition. True, technically the Left joins various rights organizations in condemning the manifold human rights violations across the Islamic world.  But in a strange twist, it sees no  connection with Islam as a whole, and seizes upon any movement in a positive direction as proof that nothing needs to be said or done.  Islam rocks.

This isn't to say that Muslims are all rapists or that Islam is about raping girls or conquering the world.  Most Muslims, when weighed ounce for ounce, are like most Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or anyone else.  They wake up in the morning, get ready for the day, hope the best for their kids, go to work, get stuck in traffic, have to mow the yard, pay bills and go to the ball game.

FWIW, so did Nazis.  We're all human, but some can be rather bad.  And even if the bad ones are a minority, that minority can sometimes dupe a majority that is too concerned with college loans and wedding dates.  But even the good ones don't all see the end of the human game in the same terms.  And it's the height of arrogance mixed with ignorance to believe everyone in the world wants a nice, post-Western, post-Christian secular Leftist socialist vision of the world once the dust settles.

Which is why, perhaps, when stories like this happen, they receive so little attention.  As has been demonstrated time and again, when various 'designated minorities' run afoul of the narrative by being murdered, attacked, raped or whatever, by other 'designated minorities', then that's when they are also swept under the carpet.  Just ask yourself, if this was equal in every way, but was connected to the Catholic Church, or some other European Christian sect, do you think you'd hear so little about it?  Do you really think so?  Perhaps I'm being unfair, but there's a point when credulity just can't withstand the overwhelming evidence.

Another unperson sighting

This time in the form of a man with a concealed gun who, according to the accounts, prevented a shooting at a night club.  I'm sure there will be a few news stories, but I'd be shocked if it makes its way up to the front of the news hour.  After all, the power of the modern narrative is to deny the existence of that which does not promote the modern narrative.  Hence unpeople.  Like those unpeople who die, but not from guns.  Or those other unpeople who use guns to stop crime or save innocent civilians.  Or those unpeople who die of AIDS in greater numbers than those people murdered by guns in a year.  It's basic Propaganda 101.  And Americans are falling for it like no tomorrow.

Speaking of hate and bigotry

The Non-Black Lives Don't Matter movement has issued a statement blaming the Orlando shooting on - wait for it - White Supremacy.  Yeah, that's right.  I'll leave you to stop chuckling before we continue.

You see, the problem is that we're not done.  The Cold Civil War isn't over.  The Left still hasn't won and come to dominate here in the States.  It has ended in Europe, that's why there aren't many titanic clashes.  Oh sure, post-Christian liberalism is eating European civilization away as it literally aborts itself out of existence.  But it's not doing so with the same level of divisiveness we see here.

I get that there are divisions in Europe.  But as a whole, the verdict is in, and the result is secular liberalism.  That's a place most Europeans more than happily see themselves.  It took two world wars and one of history's worst genocides and a half century of living next to a Communist terror state, but Europe emerged from it all more or less accepting the premises of secular liberalism.

Here in the States, that's not the case.  Even though liberalism is making strides by leaps and bounds, it is still not universally embraced.  It isn't even a massive majority.  Younger generations are embracing it, but not all the way.  Young people accept post-rational gender abstraction, but are leery about the whole unfettered abortion culture.  Because there is no clear victor, the sides are in a bitter war, a Cold war, but bitter nonetheless.  Deny the culture war all you want, but it's there.  And it's raging.

So when 9/11 obliterated the happy liberal Multi-Cultural narrative of evil White Christians, beautiful non-White, Non-Christians, the Left had to step up to the plate and work overtime to convince us it's still about the civilization it truly hates.  The post-Iraqi conundrum we found ourselves in was easy.  It was Bush's fault.  But we can't blame ISIS on "American Policy" as easily since a liberal Democrat is president, and it happened under his watch.

As we're told to not care about Americans killed by terrorists as long as it isn't us, and we're told that things are getting better all the time in the world thanks to the omniscience of Barrack Obama and his infallible policies, each time something like this happens it creates a problem.  Because the Left knows the war is far from over, and theoretically the Left could still lose, decisive action must be taken.  So when the Orlando shooting happened, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 on American soil, the latest under President Obama, because of a man clearly pledging allegiance to ISIS and his Islamic Faith, what did we decide to do?  Easy.  Toga!

Literally.  The response we're hearing from liberal leaders is every bit as sound and intellectually valid as Otter and Boon's solution.  A potentially gay, racist Muslim of Afghani descent who does nothing but pledge his undying devotion to Allah and ISIS and opens fire on an overwhelmingly Hispanic crowd in a gay bar, and it's White Supremacy?  It's American Conservatives?  It's Catholic homophobia?   Sorry everyone, but that's nothing else than saying Tom Robinson has to be guilty because, well, look at him.  It's bigotry.  And it shows that various groups, like Non-Black Lives Don't Matter, hate.  They hate us.  They hate an America they want to burn to the ground.  They hate historic Christianity.  They hate Christians.  They hate white people.  They hate, loath, despise.  And I'm not 100% sure that they would care if we all died tomorrow.  That last is speculation on my part, but I'd need to see some alternate behavior to convince me I'm too far from wrong.

Of course as Christians we pray for them.  Even if they declare themselves to be our enemy, we can do nothing else.  But it's worth remembering, as a former friend and college once pointed out, that though we must pray for our enemies, love our enemies, and do good for our enemies, at no point did Christ ever say that by doing so they would cease to be our enemies.

Orlando Shooting: Responses of the Radical Left

Where we discover that Conservative Christians, and American Conservatives in general, are to blame for the Orlando Shootings. Remember, the most important truth of the liberal heresy is that squares are, in fact, round.  Anything that suggests otherwise is part of a vast [fill in the blank with your favorite bad guy] conspiracy.  No matter what the evidence looks like, the fact remains that square are, in fact, round.  Now off you go, get back to the drugs and sex.

Could someone please explain what is going on?

So the headlines broke early yesterday that Hillary made history by clinching the nomination.  Of course it was a ploy by the media.  More on that later.  This morning, the headlines are bristling with excitement as they proclaim that, as a result of the primaries, Hillary made history by clinching the nomination.  And yet, as of now, nothing has really changed:

She still needs the Super Delegates to make the numbers, which is no different than it was yesterday morning.

Is there something I'm missing?  I'm not saying there isn't.  Perhaps there is something, and I'd be willing to concede the point.  Otherwise, I have to believe that the ongoing mission to make America stupid has finally reached a milestone when headlines can read 'We've made history because 2+2=5, since yesterday 2+2 only equaled 5!!'  Please tell me there's something I'm missing in this last 48 hour news cycle to assuage my fears of living among a historically unprecedented level of stupidity.

Dear Bishop McElroy

Please stop it.  Please stop joining with this incessant pounding, hashing, trashing and smashing of America as this increasingly Islamaphobic nation.  Try asking why there is an uptick in Islamaphobia.  Why does Donald Trump have the support he has?  Because there are Americans who are tired of being told that one extreme case of violence against Muslims defines our entire country, while tens of thousands of cases of violence by Muslims proves nothing about this religion of Peace. 

They're sick of being told that 300 million Americans exercising restraint in the face of attacks and killings and terrorist strikes means nothing at all, while a single Muslim can do a wonderful thing and it just goes to show how awesome 1.6 billion Muslims are. 

They're sick of being told, whenever scrutiny does come to the Islamic world's actual treatment of Christians through the ages, that America nuked Hiroshima, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem, and Japanese (but not Italian or German) internment camps. 

Why are Americans becoming more anti-Muslim?  Because there is a growing segment of America that no longer believes any amount of restraint and tolerance will change the narrative that America alone is the source of evil and suffering in the world because it's an evil, bigoted nation.  And furthermore, no amount of oppression, terror, killings or apathy toward the plight of the West by Muslims will convince people that Islam is anything other than our loving brother coequal with the Gospel.

You want to put an end to Islamaphobia, start by challenging the narrative, not by endorsing it. 

The problem with the immigration debate

 

Is that it is framed as heroic people who care versus racist Americans who would throw babies in the river to protect their bank accounts.  I'm sure there are some extremes who feel that way about immigrants.  I'm also sure there are extremes on the other side of the debate who don't care about America's interests in the least as they invoke collective guilt against any Americans who might suffer and die at the hands of illegal immigrants.  In fact, I know there are.  When the case of Kathryn Steinle was brought up in the debate, on more than one website and blog, defenders of illegals dropped the 'look what Americans did to the Indians' rebuttal.  If you think of that, what else does it mean than a thinly veiled 'Americans get what they have coming because their ancestors with a certain skin color did things to other people of a certain skin color.' 

Therefore, I would say there is a certain lack of concern for the wellbeing of Americans by some in the immigration debate.  So we can probably safely rework the narrative to say that it is two groups of heroic people trying to find the way to do the right thing against two extremes who don't care about one or the other groups of people who are impacted by the immigration problem.

So with that, we realize that neither approach is without its extremes who might well have very un-Christian motives or beliefs.  It's no better, in my opinion, to dismiss the suffering of Americans than it is to dismiss the suffering of Latino immigrants. 

So what to do?  Now that we've established nether side of the debate is without its extremes, rather than just slander and besmirch a group for not conforming to a single position, we might actually be forced to look at facts and evidence and details. 

That is beyond me and my humble little blog, by the way.  It is why I sympathize with people on both sides of the problem.  It's why I'm slow to condemn others for disagreeing with me.  Perhaps if I had a bunch of immigrants living in my home, or I lived along the border, I might be quicker to condemn others.  But since I'm not directly impacted by the immigration debate, I'm slow to judge others who are.


You're not born here, you're not an islander.

I will say this.  A cursory glance at world wide immigration policies seems to suggest that America's policies are quite liberal by comparison.  At worst, we seem to be on par with many countries in terms of how easy it is to become a citizen and what rights a person has once they have done so.  At best, we are far better than other countries who make it very difficult, if not impossible, to become citizens.  And in some of those countries, being a citizen never quit amounts to what being born in those countries will give you. 

So let's not continue this notion that America is some racist, evil nation that throws immigrants out into the water when the rest of the world does walk with the angels where immigration is concerned.  Sure, there will always be some who don't want the latest new group to come to the party.  But despite resistance by some, we have always been an open nation to legal immigration. The only ones who ever resisted violently as a matter of policy against people coming to make a new home on our shores were, ironically, the American Indians.  But that's for another post.

America is, in the end, a liberal and open country.  At worst on par with the better countries in terms of immigration, at best far better than many.  That's why a girl I knew from Russia said what she said so many years ago.  I was working on my graduate degree, and she was one of that group of students who came to America after the fall of the USSR.  Her name was Larissa.  She went on and on about how inferior America was.  She didn't like our culture.  Our society.  Our people.  And yet she was working diligently to become a citizen.  I once asked her why, if she seems to despise so much about America, is she wanting to become a citizen?  Easy, she said.  Because the places she would like to live would be too difficult.  She would be a little old lady before becoming a citizen in those countries.  America is ten times easier. 

So why the problem?  First, because Latin American countries are a mess.  A freaking mess.  Poverty, corruption, crime, drugs and conflicts are pushing inordinate numbers of Latinos across the border and into the US. 

Second, our border.  There are few if any places in the world where such a long border exists between one nation and another culture filled with people perpetually trying to get in.  That puts a massive strain on the system.  And since people from Latin America are probably like people in general, they don't want to wait.  They don't want to be the ones who starve or die at the hands of criminals and corrupt governments just so some others get across to the promised land.

Third, because of the backlog and the subsequent desire people have to circumvent it, there has arisen a veritable black market of immigrant smugglers.  Bet your bottom dollar that care and concern for the well being of the immigrants are not top on the smugglers' list.  That makes the entire situation look worse than it needs to be.

Fourth, American employees have added to the allure of coming over illegally by hiring illegal immigrants.  It's true.  Illegals no doubt heard that if they could just get here, they could find work and not have to endure the processes of becoming legal.  Americans would hire them for peanuts, but at least peanuts can be eaten.

Fifth, because so many were willing to just leave their Latin American homes, there has been no real pressure on the Latino governments to, oh, do a better job not starving, screwing, oppressing and killing their own people.  That was a criticism by even pro-immigrant activists back in the day.  In fact, the irony is that I remember some Democratic critics of Reagan blasting his amnesty back in the 80s because it wouldn't compel the Mexican government (and other governments) to do a better job.  It was essentially paying off their credit cards of corruption, rather than making them change. 

Sixth, the influx of illegals is unchecked and does do harm to Americans living here.  Assuming you don't think that the only good American is a dead American, concern for Americans already here is important.

Seventh, all of this is framed between extremes, though to be honest, the extreme of controlling immigration is not usually advanced by most thinkers in the debate.  That is, they aren't racists who say keep people out because they are the wrong race.  The other side, as well, is not defined by its extremes.  If there were people on social media and the blogosphere who invoked collective guilt against white Americans, most thinkers representing an open border and amnesty position don't advocate that.  So let's be careful about generalizing.

Nonetheless, missing in the debate is the fact that America is a liberal nation with immigration.  We are very open and welcoming.  We allow people to come in by the millions.  Upwards of three-quarter of a million people become citizens every year.  But with the strain that illegals put on our system, with the threat of terrorist cells coming into our country under the radar, with the ongoing and increasing drug problem coming across the border, as well as the growing problem of human slavery reemerging in the world, it's logical that we need to do something.

America's future identity?

I'm not in favor of building a wall.  It won't work.  It isn't as if illegals will suddenly throw up their hands and turn around.  It will be billions spent to simply cause the black market of immigrant runners to find new ways around the obstacle.  Plus, it invokes that feeling of Cold War Berlin.  I remember it was a point of pride that America was not the country with walls.  That was the Soviet Union.  And in the wake of 9/11, there has been a growing trend for some Conservatives to embrace more and more tactics and methods that were once condemned by those very Conservatives.  The point of Conservatism is to face the enemy while conserving the past.  It isn't to become like the enemy and say it's OK because we're the good guys. 

So a bit of a mess I'll admit.  Far more complex than just building bridges or walls.  Far more complex than evil white racists versus beautiful people who care.  Far more complex than America shuns immigrants and are against all immigrants when it's clear we let them in by the millions.  Far more complex, in the end, than just about anyone is admitting, except for some of the Republican Candidates.  I'll give them that.  Kasich and Rubio are two who have laid out their reasoning for why they want to do what they want to do.  They've actually reminded people that America is not against legal immigration.  They have explained exactly how and why we need to refuse the Democratic narrative, but also need to reform the current system.  Bush and Carson might have done so as well, but I've not heard them yet.  Unfortunately, while Trump never said he's against immigrants, and did make it clear that he is speaking of illegal immigrants, the tone and content of his rhetoric fit right into the artificial narrative of the liberal press and the Democratic candidates.  And worse, the Pope's response to Trump seemed to do nothing other than fit into that artificial narrative as well. 

So perhaps if nothing else this latest kerfuffle will be a chance for Republicans to seize the moment and reclaim the narrative.  To attack the anti-American notion that one of the most open countries in the world is some racist compound with walls and barbed wire.   But perhaps not advocating for walls and barbed wire might be the best way to start reclaiming the debate.

Conservatives are sexist pigs

And racist, too.  Yep.  So this strange story, that suggests supporters of Bernie Sanders - champion of the culture of death - are acting like stereotypical sexists and racists, must be wrong. 

Understanding the modern narrative 101

Heroes whose motives are beyond reproach:

Villains who are lower than the low:

That's all class.  Quiz on Monday

Why I haven't heard any more about the Houston Mosque fire

Is explained here.  Samuel Jackson was partly right.  Had the San Bernardino shooters been white, it would have been different.  First, they're religion or politics would have been the prime and/or only cause of the violence, even if we didn't know the facts.  If it turned out that these had nothing to do with it, then there would be no real going back and correcting the matter. 

Likewise, had this fellow been a white Christian, then we would have days, perhaps weeks, of stories reminding us of America's racist past, the violence and evils of the Christian heritage, the anti-Islamic bigotry and hapless hordes of Muslims being butchered and slaughtered every day in America, and on and on.  

As it is, the suspect is not very white, and pretty Muslim.  No narratives to advance there.  Expect a couple up date stories in the days to come.  That is it.  It's all so different now because of who turned out to be the possible culprit.  Maybe Mr. Jackson wasn't being so silly after all. 

Hate attacks on Muslims on the rise

This is not good.  However, think on this.  According to this article, there have been 38 anti-Muslim attacks in the US since the Paris attacks.  That's over a month in the third most populated nation on the planet.  How many have been killed?  From what I can tell, none.  Over 300 million Americans, and yet not a Muslim or Arab killed.  Which is good!  I'm glad, and those 38 attacks should be immediately and roundly condemned.  There is no excuse or pardon for it.

And yet, you can't help but get the feeling that this is a terrible disappointment for the Left, the Media, and for Democrats who live off of the anti-Americanism of the Left.  Just like I wrote here some time ago, Americans were supposed to be running amok, butchering and slaughtering Muslims by the truck load, blowing up Mosques, rounding up Arabs and sending them off into hidden death camps in the Nevada deserts.  It was supposed to be carnage of an unthinkable level.

In our neck of the woods, the only religious leader murdered in the last 15 years that I am aware of was a Catholic priest.  There was a rash of church burnings a couple years ago.  The Catholic parish in the town I grew up in was one of the churches burned.  It wasn't based on ethnicity or burnings of Mosques or Synagogues, so if you're not from around here, you likely didn't hear about it.

Still, when interviewed, Muslim leaders in our area speak as if every day is a hit list of murdered and terrorized Muslims.  Every day across our country, millions are rushing around threatening, attacking, killing, torturing Muslims, Arabs, and anyone else who is swarthy or dark skinned.

I'm glad they are wrong.  I'm glad their fears seem to be overreactions.  I'm saddened that it has happened even the 38 times.  I wish it didn't happen at all.  But we are 300 million people.  I just fear that all of the attention the press gives will keep the fires stoked until someone either does react and finally hurt someone who is Muslim (or worse), or just as likely, encourage ISIS terrorists or others sympathetic to Islam to go on the seemingly justified attack.  And then, I wonder if the media will analyse its role in the events?