A couple weeks backs he gave a brief but jam-packed talk about the history of Islam, focusing on three important lessons therein, namely (one) there has never been a lasting alliance between a Muslim state and a non‑Muslim one; (two) there has never been a Western-style secular republic that was based on Islamic principles; (three) there’s never been a shortage of non‑Muslims who are willing to help the jihad.
Along the way, we learn about where Saudi Arabia got its name and how a Minneapolis charter school that received taxpayer funds was named for a Muslim conqueror of Spain.
Below, Islam was spread by the sword, giving the political system quite a bit of territory today.
Spencer gave his speech at the recent Restoration Weekend sponsored by the David Horowitz organization:
Thank you very much, and yes indeed, The History of Jihad is the first book that chronicles the entirety of the phenomenon of jihad for 1,400 years. Not just the jihad against Europe, although that’s very much a part of the book, but also the jihad against India and the jihad elsewhere, also tying in the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is itself a jihad, and of course, the people who struck us on 9/11 were motivated by the exact same ideology that has motivated the jihad conquests of the distant past and is still with us very much today. Of course, one of the reasons why anybody is interested in reading history or studying history is because of the old adage “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” More to the point, really, is that if you do not learn from your mistakes, you keep making the same mistakes again and again and again. That’s U.S. foreign policy today, because of, in large part, a lack of awareness and understanding of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat and of a complete lack of knowledge of the history of jihad. So I thought this morning very briefly I’d give you three lessons from history that could have a very great impact on foreign policy today in the United States, were there to be sanity in the State Department, which, of course, I know is at a premium.
Now, the first one is that nowhere in history, and this is something to bear in mind when you’re thinking about the case of Jamal Khashoggi, who is, of course, the sainted and martyred journalist who was killed by the Saudis. He was actually a pro-Al Qaeda Muslim Brotherhood operative who was killed by the Saudis, so there are no good guys in that story. But in light of it, it is important to remember that when you look through and examine and study the history of Islam for 1,400 years, there has never been a lasting alliance between a Muslim state and a non‑Muslim state. It would be nice if there had been. There were some sort-term alliances of convenience, but that’s another problem as well. Continue reading this article
Of all the bad decisions made about immigration, it’s arguable that one of the worst in modern times occurred when in 2015 Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to fling open her nation’s doors to Syrians displaced by revolution at home. In response, many non-suffering persons from Africa to Asia used the invitation to join the march on Europe, Camp of the Saints style.
Germany has become a prime example of how unwise, excessive immigration can profoundly damage a society through increased violent crime, disorder and political conflict. Modern life is complex enough without adding more variety.
Below, Below, Kandel townspeople demanded that “Merkel must go” as they protested the brutal murder of a 15-year-old girl by an Afghan asylum seeker who claimed to be a minor but was believed to be an adult.
Tucker Carlson discussed diverse immigration in Germany with Richard Grenell, the US ambassador there. A sensible fellow, Grenell is surprisingly plain-spoken for a diplomat, although he relies on the numbers argument against failed immigration and doesn’t mention the unfriendly culture of the new residents, many of whom answer to allah.
TUCKER CARLSON: America isn’t the only country facing economic pressure and social volatility from unrestrained immigration. Just three years ago Europe faced its own wave of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. the German Chancellor Angela Merkel responds to this by accepting nearly a million migrants in a single year. Adjusted for population that would be like this country taking in four million in twelve months.
Three years after that, how has that decision affected Germany and Merkel’s political career? Rick Grenell is the current ambassador to Germany and is joining us. Thank you for coming on.
AMBASSADOR RICHARD GRENELL: Of course. Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: You are seeing the figures on the left, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry most prominently, but others rethinking the political fallout of Merkel’s decision to do that in Germany. From where you sit, what was the effect of letting in those migrants?
GRENELL: First of all, let’s talk about the political effect. There was no plan in place, so the policy really fell apart. Chancellor Merkel and many in Germany had big hearts. They wanted to do something, but there wasn’t a plan, and so, even Chancellor Merkel all these years later has agreed that there was no plan, and therefore the entire policy fell apart. It wasn’t implemented with hardcore security measures and follow-up, so from the political standpoint, next week, Chancellor Merkel is giving up her chairmanship of the party. There are three other people running and the top issue is migration and her handling of migration. Politically I’d say it toppled her and has forced her now to give up the chairmanship of a party she once ran with a very strong arm.
CARLSON: What’s so interesting watching Germany from here is how the German press and its cultural leaders responded. This was three years ago, and it was immediately obvious ordinary Germans didn’t like it, and it caused the crime rate to go up and it was causing economic pressure on ordinary Germans. But people weren’t allow to say that for a number of years in public, or am I misreading it?
GRENELL No, you are exactly right, and I’d go so far as to say we still have that problem in Germany. there is still an overreaction if you complain about wanting secure borders or just an orderly process.
This is not about whether you have a heart; this is whether or not you have a plan, and we in the United States know a million people a year get US citizenship. We are very generous; this is not about not wanting immigrants. And the whole idea that the left or some on the right even, or the media are mixing up legal immigration with illegal immigration is really an outrage, and those of us in the public policy positions have to be able to push back and say look, we’re not talking about legal immigration. The United States is very generous. Germany has been very generous. This is about whether or not you have a plan because not everyone is going to be able to come.
That’s what you have to be able to say. we must prioritize. What is that number? One million people in the United States? is it four million people in Germany over a number of years? What is that number, because whatever that number is, it’s still going to be too low. You are still going to turn people away. So let’s have an orderly process and figure out how to do legal immigration and do it the right way.
CARLSON: I think that is what we need in the United States — an honest adult conversation about what we can afford, what is good for your country and what the next hundred years looks like demographically. We can’t have that conversation here. Can Germans have it?
GRENELL: Look, I think the United States is having a better conversation than Germans to be honest. This has largely been controlled by elites in Berlin, but normal, everyday people are beginning to say wait a minute, this policy is not working. This is not about being generous; we are very generous. They have a lot of open borders throughout Europe, but I would also argue that the mistakes of Germany, Tucker, rippled throughout all of Europe because we have seen in Austria with Sebastian Kurz who came in with a platform to say we need security and a set of rules. This is not about not being generous; this is not about not being open to immigrants, but this is about just having rules. Once he established that he wanted rules, Sebastian Kurz won in a very big way and is now becoming very popular throughout Germany.
So while some in the media in Germany will try to push this into saying you are a radical far right person, the reality is that normal everyday Germans and Europeans are clamoring for leaders who wants to have safe and secure borders and an orderly process.
CARLSON: If they want to create radicals, they should keep lying to the population because that’s what they are going to get.
Here’s the kind of automation fail nobody wants to see. A jetliner crashed and killed all 189 people on board last month as the pilots struggled unsuccessfully to wrest control from the plane’s own computer system.
Both crashes show that the transition to the automated future is not entirely smooth or even safe. Self-driving cars were created with the idea of being far safer than those with humans behind the wheel. Still, last March a self-driving Uber failed to perceive a woman who was walking her bicycle across a highway in Tempe, Arizona, causing her death. The technology we have today is not yet up to the trust many invest in it.
Wednesday’s front-page New York Times article about the recent jetliner crash was reprinted in Australia’s Canberra Times:
New York: Data from the jetliner that crashed into the Java Sea last month shows the pilots fought to save the plane almost from the moment it took off, as the Boeing 737’s nose was repeatedly forced down, apparently by an automatic system receiving incorrect sensor readings.
The information from the flight data recorder, contained in a preliminary report prepared by Indonesian crash investigators and scheduled to be released on Wednesday, documents a fatal tug-of-war between man and machine, with the plane’s nose forced dangerously downward more than two dozen times during the 11-minute flight.
The pilots managed to pull the nose back up over and over until finally losing control, leaving the plane, Lion Air Flight 610, to plummet into the ocean at 450 mph (724 km/h), killing all 189 people on board.
The data from the so-called black box is consistent with the theory that investigators have been most focused on: that a computerised system Boeing installed on its latest generation of 737 to prevent the plane’s nose from getting too high and causing a stall instead forced the nose down because of incorrect information it was receiving from sensors on the fuselage.
In the aftermath of the crash, pilots have expressed concern that they had not been fully informed about the new Boeing system — known as the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, or MCAS — and how it would require them to respond differently in case of the type of emergency encountered by the Lion Air crew.
“It’s all consistent with the hypothesis of this problem with the MCAS system,” said R. John Hansman Jr., a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and director of the international centre for air transportation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Boeing has said that the proper steps for pulling out of an incorrect activation of the system were already in flight manuals, so there was no need to detail this specific system in the new 737 jet.
In a statement on Tuesday, Boeing said it could not discuss the crash while it is under investigation but reiterated that “the appropriate flight crew response to uncommanded trim, regardless of cause, is contained in existing procedures.” (Continues)
There’s an interesting anti-illegal-alien ad on television that I happened to see the other day: in it a bereaved mom describes the loss of her daughter when a drunk-driving illegal alien struck and killed her, and then he was released from jail despite his crime and status.
Below, illegal alien Edwin Mejia (left) killed Sarah Root (right), yet was allowed to post bond from jail and escape.
The organization America First Policies produced the video; its Youtube page is here.
Here’s a report on the video from The Hill:
Pro-Trump group to debut latest ad in $1M push for border wall, The Hill, November 23, 2018
A political nonprofit aiming to boost President Trump’s policies is set to debut a new ad on Monday calling on lawmakers to fund his long-promised wall along the U.S. southern border.
The $500,000 ad buy is the second from America First Policies this month, seeking to put pressure on Congress to get behind the border wall project. Together, the ads have cost the group $1 million so far.
The latest spot features Michelle Root, whose daughter was killed in 2016 in a car crash allegedly caused by an immigrant in the country without legal status. In the ad, Root suggests that building the border wall would prevent future tragedies, while alluding to the administration’s controversial former policy of separating migrant families at the border.
“My separation is permanent,” she says in the 30-second spot. “I want to see that wall built. I want to see stronger immigration laws. Make your voice heard. Call your congressman and your senators.”
The ad comes nearly three weeks after Democrats recaptured the House in the midterm elections, giving them a majority in the chamber for at least the next two years.
The party needed to gain at least 23 seats to recapture control of the House. So far, Democrats have picked up 38 seats.
The ad from America First Policies also comes as a deadline for lawmakers to fund the government is just two weeks away.
Trump wants Congress to approve at least $5 billion in funding for his border wall, while Senate Democrats have said that they will offer no more than $1.6 billion. (Continues)
The New York Times normally doesn’t do sob story photos on its front page, given its reputation of being the staid and proper Grey Lady, but Monday was an exception. One can assume the point was to portray border chaos with President Trump as the meanie-in-chief who opposes open borders to the world (now 7.7 billion).
The photo shows a woman with two kids dodging tear gas in Tijuana as illegal alien Hondurans tried to storm the border. Presumably, the viewer is supposed to think that the cruel Trump is persecuting innocent kiddies. I see an irresponsible mother who has dragged her children more than 2000 miles to steal benefits and education from the American taxpayer. The United States is a national community of citizens, not welfare office to the world.
Tijuana migrants run into teargas on US border, By Maya Averbuch and Elisabeth Malkin/New York Times News Service, Telegraph India, November 26, 2018
Donald Trump has made preventing the migrants’ entry into the US a signature stance of his administration over the past few weeks
A peaceful march by Central American migrants waiting at the southwestern US border veered out of control on Sunday afternoon, as hundreds of people tried to evade a Mexican police blockade and run toward a giant border crossing that leads into San Diego.
In response, the US Customs and Border Protection agency shut down the border crossing in both directions and fired tear gas to push back migrants from the border fence. The border was reopened later on Sunday evening.
The episode comes at a time of growing tension on both sides of the border and promised to become the newest flash point in the story of a caravan that was the target of President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rallying cry during the midterm elections.
Trump has made preventing their entry into the United States a signature stance of his administration over the past few weeks and has sent US soldiers to the border, although the US military was not involved in Sunday’s clash. The images of unrest on Sunday will likely provide him with additional ammunition as he tries to keep out the caravan members and other immigrants and refugees fleeing poverty and violence in their homelands. (Continues)
The Christian Science Monitor recently took a good long look at how the automated future will affect workers in one of the nation’s largest job categories — trucking. Self-driving vehicles will likely cause a great number of the two million-plus truck drivers in America to be put out of work.
Below, a 2015 map of employment in the US from National Public Radio (NPR) shows the most common occupation in every state, where truck driving now predominates.
It would be nice if official Washington were paying attention to the fundamental economic changes coming our way from the automation wave. There’s not a whole lot that can be done, since machines will be utilized whenever they become cheaper than humans. Still, an emphasis on appropriate technical training would help, and of course we needn’t be importing foreign workers when nearly half of Americans will be made jobless in 20 years if the forecast of Oxford researchers is correct. Therefore:
Automation Makes Immigration Obsolete
The Christian Science Monitor looked at the technology largely from the viewpoint of the drivers who will be affected, which is a pleasant change from the Silicon Valley opinion that any tech advance is totally cool, no matter the human consequences.
POMPANO BEACH, FLA. — On a muggy morning, Matt Brauneck noses his semi with its 53-foot trailer out of the yard, past the puddles left by a tropical storm. From his driver’s seat in the cab he has a clear view of the road and of the light suburban traffic leading to Interstate 75 in southeastern Florida. Atop the pearly-white cab are six cameras and three radar sensors that are feeding data to a computer stack behind Mr. Brauneck’s seat and to a remote operating base in Jacksonville, Fla., 300 miles away. Brauneck’s boss, Stefan Seltz-Axmacher, the head of a small robotics company, is wedged in the back. I’m sitting up front.
And we’re about to turn over command of 16 tons of aluminum and steel to an algorithm.
After the truck eases onto the highway, Brauneck talks into his headset to the technicians in Jacksonville. Ten minutes later he gets the all-clear: Time to engage automation. He turns a cracker-sized red knob on the dashboard and flicks a switch. “We’re rolling. It’s on,” he says.
Brauneck lifts his hands from the wheel, which jerks occasionally to correct our path. The accelerator pedal at his feet is working itself up and down, or so it seems, as we cruise along I-75. Brauneck says the first time he “drove” a truck in automation it felt like the first time he scuba dived. Like breathing underwater, “it didn’t feel right,” he says. Now it’s routine for him.
Yet it’s not routine for me. I can’t stop watching the twitching wheel. Outside, the narrow highway shoulder is hemmed by a 10-foot fence to keep out alligators from the surrounding swampland. I see vultures wheeling overhead – seriously.
Welcome to tomorrow on the nation’s highways. Your local truck stop is one of the latest places where machines may soon replace jobs now done by humans.
For decades, robotic devices have been remaking the world of work, principally on the factory floor. They build our cars. They fetch our TVs and toasters in massive consumer warehouses. They weld the turbines used in jet engines.
But with advances in artificial intelligence, machines are poised to invade workplaces that once seemed immune to automation. A 2013 study by Oxford University found that fully 47 percent of jobs in the United States were at risk of being automated based on existing AI and robotics capabilities.
Transportation is one of the key areas where machines are on the march. People are both captivated – and frightened – by the prospect of self-driving cars pulsing through the nation’s streets. But for all the hype about automated cars, trucks may well begin hauling freight along highways, without the grizzled trucker at the wheel, first. Highway driving is more straightforward to automate than unpredictable urban driving and holds the promise of lower fuel costs, higher productivity, and improved safety.
Automated trucking is already a reality in remote mines and logging camps, and the US military has built its own robo-trucks to deploy in war zones. Volvo recently unveiled a prototype of an electric self-driving truck that doesn’t even have a cab for a driver.
While all this represents progress to many people, others worry about a looming loss of jobs. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and author of a book on automation, says AI could replace millions of semi-skilled humans in industries from fast food to retail. No job is immune, not even in white-collar fields such as accounting, insurance, and pharmacology.
“People talk about this as if it’s speculative and in the future, and we’re in the midst of it,” says Mr. Yang.
That warning may be premature – or prescient. What can the trucking industry tell us? (Continues)
The Los Angeles Times used the long holiday weekend to spew its anti-Trump baloney on citizens enjoying some time off. Its Friday front page contained the headline, “Dark-skinned Latinos see deeper shade of bias,” followed by a story and “victim” photo. Curiously, they paper didn’t respect her enough to use a decent picture.
Note that the Times own caption read in part, “Celia Lacayo was known in her family as ‘negrita,’ little black girl.” Perhaps her skin color issue has more to do with family conflict than anything political.
Nevertheless, the Times claims that the Trump presidency is responsible for unleashing racist sentiments and offered several examples, even including one from Mexico.
So did President Trump really stir up skin-color racism in Mexico? Such a cause would be odd, since Mexico already had plenty of racial discrimination, just like the rest of the planet.
The issue of racism in Mexico exploded a few years back when then-President Vicente Fox, in what was meant to be a defense of Mexican immigration to the United States, told a U.S. audience that Mexican immigrants were necessary because they performed the jobs that “not even blacks” wanted to do.
He had to apologize and receive a visit from Jesse Jackson to atone. As the furor died down, another popped up when Mexico printed postage stamps that commemorated a well-known comic-book character from the 1950s, Memin Pinguin. The character is a black boy drawn with exaggerated features. It was seen as racist by many in the U.S. who demanded Mexico withdraw the stamps; many in Mexico, including several leftist intellectuals, defended Memin Pinguin as a beloved part of Mexican culture. (Withdrawing the stamps became a moot point when they sold out within hours of going on market.)
Naturally, the internet has pictures of the objectionable stamps which caused quite a cross-border furor in 2005:
But the Times thinks racism is worsened in America because Donald Trump is president. Its writers need to spend more time observing human nature.
Over her 42 years, Lisette Flores’ brown skin has at times struck at a rich vein of insecurity.
In the more mundane moments, she’s been quizzed about her background, whether she’s Mexican or Native American. In college, the young woman taking her ID photo offered to lighten the shade in the background to make her look less dark.
In Mexico, a bouncer at a nightclub looked down at her and asked if the others in her group looked like her — far from the blond, light-skinned women often featured in the country’s popular telenovelas.
In January, her darker skin made her a target of a more politically fashionable attack.
As Flores walked back from lunch, she encountered a group of Trump supporters protesting outside the Arizona state Capitol building in Phoenix.
“Go back to Mexico!” a woman shouted, singling Flores out of a group of six. Two light-skinned Latinas escaped the stinging words.
Colorism — a subset of racism that rewards light skin and more Anglo features and penalizes dark skin and more indigenous features — long has affected how people are perceived in this country. But it has contributed an extra layer of angst in the Trump era, as the rhetoric around immigration draws attention to those whom some people, with seemingly more audacity than before, judge as not belonging.
“I’ve never committed a crime, I try to be a good neighbor, a good friend, a good person,” Flores said.
“And to know that any contribution, however big or small I’ve done, is seen as irrelevant in certain eyes because I’m not blond-haired, or blue-eyed or light skin-colored, that all I’m seen as is somebody that … they consider as an invader, as an alien, as a criminal, is disheartening.” (Continues)
President Trump wants border security against the billions on earth who would relocate in America if they could, and that makes him a racist in the eyes of liberal scribblers.
Talk about a blast from the past — seeing Mark Steyn discuss border enforcement with Juan Hernandez, the one-time advisor of Mexico Presidente Vicente Fox, brought back memories of someone best forgotten. A dual citizen of Mexico and the US, Hernandez also advised John McCain during his failed presidential campaign — perhaps not the senator’s best personnel choice, since McCain got only 31 percent of the hispanic vote.
As Mark Krikorian reported in a 2008 CIS article titled “Mexico First”:
“I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ ” These are the words of Juan Hernandez, John McCain’s “Hispanic outreach director,” on Nightline June 7, 2001.
So it appears that the bi-national Hernandez favors his Mexican side.
On Tuesday, he tried to use his oily open-borders shtick on Mark Steyn (hosting the Tucker Carlson show), who wasn’t buying it.
When questioned about the provision of the law that requires asylum seekers to stay in the first safe country they reach, Juan answered, “My friend, we all know the United States is today the most powerful nation in the world: it is their dream of many, many people who are just trying to get out of dire poverty, violence, to be able to reach the United States.”
Unlike many talking heads, Steyn is familiar with the worsening threat of world population growth and isn’t afraid to bring it up in conversation. The many problems of Honduras haven’t slowed its reproductive activity: numbers have more than quadrupled since 1960.
MARK STEYN: But everyone with a dream — the seven billion people on the planet — and as you say, America is the most powerful, wealthiest, all the rest of it. Does that give six-and-a-half billion people the right to move to the United States?
JUAN HERNANDEZ: It’s not that it’s the right — although many would claim that it is a human right, that if you are in a dire situation, you are going to try, even if you have to break some administrative rules, but they have not committed crimes, they are just seeking asylum.
STEYN: You are now part of the state government in Mexico. What is wrong with your state then? If they just want a better life, why can’t they move to your state? Your state is better than Honduras, wherever they come from.
HERNANDEZ : Yes it is, but the dream for them is the United States. . .
The United States needs about 350,000 new people every year. These 10,000 are good people. I met them. . .
STEYN: There are plenty of good people. If you go to these airport diners by the way, you enter your meal order on a machine. Nobody needs people anymore; it’s all automation.
Hernandez seemed unduly stuck on the “dream” of the caravansters, but that’s not a convincing argument to admit them when they have no right to be here even under the asylum scam.
Ami Horowitz is an independent filmmaker who goes where the mainstream reporters often fear to tread, like quizzing Minnesota Somalis on their beliefs about sharia law versus American justice.
His most recent foray was tagging along with the Honduran caravan and asking relevant questions like their reason for trekking north to America. Answer: to get jobs and benefits, not escape any mythical persecution at home.
A multitude of services is available on the caravan for the illegal aliens which is training them to expect massive free stuff in America.
Horowitz has his own Youtube channel, and the caravan report includes a close-up view of invasive persons.
Of particular interest is the attitude of extreme entitlement the Hondurans have, that they are poor and therefore should be allowed to enter the United States, grab jobs from citizens and be eligible for all the social welfare programs that Americans pay high taxes to maintain.
In short, they come to plunder, not immigrate.
AMI HOROWITZ (5:00): This is one of the many many trucks and buses that are part of this caravan that are ferrying these guys from one location to another on the way to the United States. At the base camp there’s a mobile hospital stocked with enough pharmaceutical drugs to make Keith Richards blush. There’s also plenty of doctors and nurses attending to all the migrants.
(Addressing caravansters) America also has very generous benefits for people who live in America. Is that something you want to take advantage of?
ORANGE SHIRT HONDURAN: Yes, of course.
BLUE SHIRT: Yes it is. To improve our life through those benefits.
WOMAN WITH KIDS: I’m traveling with one of my boys and my kid here. But I’ve having problems with him, he is sick.
HOROWITZ: Do you think your son will have better treatment in the United States as opposed to Honduras?
WOMAN WITH KIDS: With God’s help, I think he will. [. . .]
HOROWITZ: There are probably several billion people in the world who are seeking a better life. Do these migrants think that all of them should be allowed to enter the US?
(Asks Hondurans) Should America let in anybody who wants to come in?
TAN SHIRT HONDURAN: That is what we want.
“ROCKSTAR” HAT: All of us here have lots of needs.
BLUE POLO: Truth be told, yes.
SHORT-HAIRED YOUNG GUY: Well . . . yes.
PLAID-SHIRT MAN: Yes, of course. Because it’s people in poverty with lots of needs. We are running away from the difficult reality in our lands.
Once upon a time, young dissatisfied men in Latin America might join a revolutionary group to fight for a better life. But now it’s just easier to go mooch off Americans.
TIJUANA, Mexico — When the Central American caravan finally crosses onto U.S. soil - past the fresh coils of barbed wire, through the chain-link door - they will begin a closely monitored existence in U.S. custody, with showers every two days and guard checks every 15 minutes.
They will live in one of 31 holding rooms with painted cinder-block walls at the San Ysidro port of entry, the nation’s largest with space for 25 people per room, sleeping under Mylar blankets on rubber mats, watched by video surveillance. They will have two hot meals a day, a cold lunch, and possibly cereal before bed.
What the experience won’t be, for the several thousand migrants who are now pooling up in Tijuana, is fast.
“We have a process in place,” said Sidney Aki, the San Ysidro port director for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Please be patient.”
After more than a month and some 3,000 miles, the caravan has reached the end of its road. What had been a plodding slog through southern Mexico rapidly accelerated in the past week, as many migrants rode in buses, provided by local governments, along the route from Mexico City north to the border. More than 2,000 people have arrived in Tijuana this week, with another 7,000 not far behind, according to Mexican authorities. That doesn’t include the roughly 3,000 migrants who were already in Tijuana seeking legal entry into the United States.
For many in the caravan, the next step is to apply for asylum at the San Ysidro border crossing, and what that means is waiting. (Continues)
How can anyone who knows about the automation threat see the multiple illegal alien caravans marching on our country without concern? America needs workers in the busy Trump economy, but skilled legal people are required, not grade school dropouts from Honduras who may turn to crime when wealth is not forthcoming.
The mass invasion scenario is not why I voted for Donald Trump. The president needs to treat the caravans as a direct assault on US sovereignty. He will be a one-termer if he doesn’t fulfill his top campaign promise of border security.
TUCKER CARLSON (3:30): I don’t understand how you can look at the projections for what automation is about to do to our economy, eliminating a huge percentage of low-skilled labor in this country, and say we need more low-skilled labor — all low-skilled labor — how can you make that argument?
BRYAN DEAN WRIGHT: You can’t. The top ten jobs that we see that immigrants take, both legal and illegal, make less than $20 an hour which by the way even the Obama administration said, jobs earning less than $20 an hour are going to be automated into obsolescence. So the argument that we need an increasing number of poorly qualified folks who don’t speak English, don’t have a skill set we need for the economy, or frankly, the one that is already here, that is a silly argument. It doesn’t hold water,
CARLSON: So I always want to believe the best about people, that they have honorable motives, and I think most people do have honorable motives, but if you can’t even martial an economic argument in favor of your immigration policy, I’m left believing maybe it is only about getting more votes for your party.
WRIGHT: How cynical.
CARLSON: I don’t want to be cynical. I just don’t see any other rationale.
WRIGHT: Look, I appreciate the argument; you may be correct. there may be parts of the party — make no mistake about it — they want open borders. Just the other day — I think it was yesterday, in fact, Senator Gillibrand from New York was buddy-buddy with the guy Sean McElwee who wants to remove the border between the United States and Mexico. So there is an element in this country, not just an activist community, but within the left of this nation, my own party, I hate to say, who want open borders. And that of course then feeds into this issue, not only how do we take care of them, but ultimately, who are they going to vote for? There is a play there that I think one could argue, this is a political play, this is about votes. So I think it is fair to have that concern and that fear.
When President Trump visited France for the 100th anniversary of the WWI Armistice, French leader Macron went out of his way to insult him and all the efforts made by Americans to help and protect France.
One point of contention was Macron’s strange argument that nationalism was the opposite of patriotism. Not in my dictionary, or President Trump’s.
MACRON: Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By saying, ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace and what is essential: its moral values.
That’s a funny thing to say to the American president, when US soldiers have twice fought and died in France against its enemies.
Below, the Normandy American Cemetery, where more than 9,000 US soldiers are buried after being killed in France during WWII.
Back to the nationalism controversy, on Monday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Professor Nicholas Giordano of Suffolk Community College who explained the concept clearly:
Audio file:
TUCKER CARLSON: Tell us what nationalism actually is, if you could sum it up as crisply as you can — what is nationalism?
PROFESSOR NICHOLAS GIORDANO: Nationalism is important because it’s what links us together as a country. We are a nation state, and so when you’re looking at the concept of nationalism, it’s the acceptance of the American creed, the tenets of the American creed, as well as it helps us to motivate us to help our country. Nationalism is one of the most important concepts out there. Macron’s just wrong — it’s as simple as that.
CARLSON: The knock against nationalism is that there’s something racially exclusive or racist about it. Is it inherently a racial creed? Does it have anything to do with race?
GIORDANO: No, it doesn’t. What nationalism does, it fosters the democratic consciousness, and that’s an important point that people get wrong. We have a stake in the system, and we are the legitimate authority over the system as the people of the United States. Prior to nationalism, loyalty was to one leader; now it’s to the country as a whole, and nationalism fosters patriotism.
In my classroom I used Hurricane Harvey as a great example. During Harvey, you had people, citizens affected by the hurricane took their own boats, their private boats and they went and they helped out their fellow citizens. They didn’t say this is the black boat, and the white boat’s 15 minutes behind us. They didn’t say this is the Republican boat or the Democrat boat — they were just out there to help Americans, and that’s what nationalism fosters. If you look at countries without nationalism — nationalism defeats tribalism — so Afghanistan, Libya, those countries are where tribalism is enforced. There’s no loyalty to the country of Afghanistan as a whole or Libya as a whole and that’s why those countries have been engaged in tribal warfare for the last 3,000 years.
CARLSON: It’s so nicely put, what you just said, and it’s such an obvious point. Why would there be such a loud caucus against nationalism, against national unity?
GIORDANO: I think there’s two things going on. When you look at someone like President Macron of France, I think he likes the idea of trans-nationalism, trying to replace the idea of nationalism with this regional nationalism. And then for other people, if we look at the United States, the people that say that nationalism is a bad thing or nationalism is racist, I think they just aren’t necessarily proud of the country that the United States is. They focus on all the bad that the United States has done and they don’t look at the positives of how the United States has actually changed the world .
CARLSON: Well exactly. Professor, that was such a nice explanation. I hope you’ll join us again.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
