Displaying posts published in

April 2018

Flooding the Voter Rolls in US and Greece by Maria Polizoidou

In principle, the idea is no different from George Soros’s 220-page guide seemingly to create a permanent voting majority for the Democratic Party by “enlarge[ing] the U.S. electorate by 10 million voters by 2018.”

Greece’s ruling Syriza coalition appears to be adopting a strategy of garnering votes from immigrants by expediting their naturalization process. It will be easier to obtain Greek citizenship than a fishing license.

A total of 800,000 immigrants — almost one-tenth of the native Greek population — will soon become citizens. Transposed to the United States, that would be the equivalent of 32,000,000 new voters.

As Greece struggles with accelerating economic decline and an increasing lack of public faith in the political leadership, the ruling Syriza coalition appears to be adopting a strategy of garnering votes from immigrants by expediting their naturalization process.

According to a recent report in the Greek daily Parapolitika, Interior Minister Panos Skourletis is laying the groundwork to enable hundreds of thousands of immigrants to become citizens and vote in the next elections. Although the mandate of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras ends in September 2019, some analysts have been predicting a call for elections by the end of 2018.

Until now, candidates for Greek citizenship had to be vetted by a committee. Under the new system, applicants will be granted citizenship automatically if they correctly answer 20 out of 30 questions online. In addition, the government is planning to allow immigrants over the age of 65 to obtain Greek IDs, without testing their knowledge of the Greek language. In other words, it will be easier to obtain Greek citizenship than a Greek fishing license. As a result, a total of 800,000 immigrants — almost one-tenth of the native Greek population — will soon become citizens. Transposed to the United States, that would be the equivalent of 32,000,000 new voters.

Turkey Calls on Europe to Criminalize “Islamophobia” by Uzay Bulut

Given Turkey’s inhospitable treatment of non-Muslims throughout the ages, it is the height of hypocrisy for its foreign minister to complain about Europe’s attitude towards Muslims, which has been the opposite of Islamophobic.

To refresh Çavuşoğlu’s memory, a review of Turkey’s record is in order.

By proposing to block all criticism of Islam on the grounds that it is “extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic and Islamophobic,” Çavuşoğlu is revealing that he would welcome banning free speech to protect a religious ideology.

At an event held in on April 11 to unveil the 2017 European Islamophobia Report — released by the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research — Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Çavuşoğlu called on EU governments to criminalize Islamophobia.

“There is no ideology or terminology called ‘Islamism’; There is only one Islam and it means ‘peace,'” he declared — incorrectly: salaam means peace; Islam means submission. He also claimed that populist politicians are “increasingly engaging in extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and Islamophobic rhetoric to get a few more votes,” and that “centrist politicians are… using a similar rhetoric to get back the votes they have lost.”

Urging all politicians to recognize Islamophobia as “a hate crime and a form of racism” in their constitutions, Çavuşoğlu accused European judiciaries of applying a double standard by not paying as much attention to Islamophobia as they do to anti-Semitism. Using the Holocaust as an analogy, he continued: “There is no need to relive Auschwitz or wait for Muslims to be burned in gas chambers like Jewish people.”

Christie Davies London Letter: Immigration is Theft (August 10, 2016)

Leftists welcome immigrants, whom they perceive as useful tools in their quest to dilute and diminish the British people’s former sense of common history and culture. Curse you, Tony Blair, for quite deliberately fostering policies that have destroyed these forms of solidarity.

Britain is a very small island, a tiny off-shore fragment. England taken alone has a population of over fifty million crammed into a land area about twice the size of Tasmania. Due to immigration England now has the highest population density in Europe and the fifth-highest in the world. The last thing such a country, one that was once a major source of emigration, needs is more people. Yet it is experiencing very high levels of immigration due to the stupidity and wilfulness of its political rulers, who are happy to ignore the resentment felt by the ordinary citizen at this influx and some of whom, like Gordon Brown when he was prime minister, even condemn these ordinary voters as “racist”.

Between 1995 and 2014 an extra four million foreign-born people settled in the United Kingdom. In any one year as many as half a million new long-term immigrants arrive. England now has 419 people per square kilometre, which is up from 379 in 2001. England has overtaken the Netherlands in population density and it is England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, where the immigrants are settling. It is projected that the density of population will rise to 460 people per square kilometre by 2030. The prospect is intolerable.

The result of this mass immigration has been a marked but deliberately concealed fall in the standard of living of the indigenous population and a large rise in inequality. The lying politicians, notably Tony Blair, have boasted about the rise in total national income due to the extra labour the migrants have provided, but most of this increase has gone in wages and welfare payments and services to the migrants themselves. Very little of it has ended up in the pockets of the indigenous population and that little has been completely offset by a rapid and substantial rise in house prices, as more people are crammed into a fixed space. Rents and mortgage payments have rocketed and these are of course a very large part of the expenditure of British citizens and particularly the poorer ones. Not only can the building industry not provide new dwellings fast enough, but as it tries to do so it gobbles up our unspoilt countryside. Britain is being concreted over and is ceasing to be a green and pleasant land. Travel has become impossible, with clogged roads and crowded trains. Our land has been stolen from us. Immigration is theft.

The Left-liberal proponents of an open-door policy, the ones who have imposed this hell on an unwilling people, are the same ideologues who whine about rising inequality. Yet immigration is a key cause of rising inequality. If there is an influx of relatively unskilled migrants, it is those among the indigenous population without skills or capital who are bound to lose out. The leftists were recently excited about Thomas Piketty’s best-selling and utterly misguided book Capital, which set out in an over-simple algebraic formula why we were getting more unequal. However, by capital Piketty meant wealth and a large part of that wealth consists of land and housing. It is the value of these that has risen enormously. When house prices rise there is a transfer of wealth in favour of those who own one from those who do not. Those who lose out are the ones struggling to purchase or rent one. My own modest house is worth ten times what I paid for it, far more than the rate of inflation. Today I could not afford to buy it. The situation is made worse by affluent foreigners buying up the better-quality housing purely as a speculative investment.

The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science How defective science harms public policy and damages our public schools. April 30, 2018 Lloyd Billingsley

“Most Americans don’t even know that the crisis exists,” explain David Randall and Christopher Welser of the National Association of Scholars. Help has now arrived in The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Cause, Consequences and the Road to Reform. The general reader might find the title puzzling but the concept is simple.

If a scientific study is to be legitimate, it must be reproducible because replication allows examination of the data and the possibility of different conclusions. If the study is not reproducible it is not really science, and as the authors show, that type of non-science is now common.

In June of 2016, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University published a paper in Science warning of the dangers of microplastic particles in the ocean. The study got considerable media attention but as it turned out, “Lönnstedt never performed the research that she and Eklöv reported.” So in philosophical terms, it had an existential problem, and veracity is also an issue.

In 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis argued, “shockingly and persuasively,” that most published research findings in his own field of medicine were false. This was due to many factors, including the limitations of statistics, “intellectual prejudices and conflicts of interest,” and researchers striving to produce positive results “in fashionable areas of research.” Based on these factors, the findings in other scientific fields were probably wrong too.

Macron Vs. Reality Slippery words from a shameless Islam appeaser. Bruce Bawer

Last week, Emmanuel Micron, I mean Macron, visited Washington, had dinner at the White House, and gave a speech on Capitol Hill in which he referred to Hemingway’s memoir A Moveable Feast as a novel, identified the French architect of Washington, D.C., whom Americans know as Pierre L’Enfant, by his middle name, Charles, and attributed a famous line by Ronald Reagan to Teddy Roosevelt. The line in question was the one about how freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.

There was, in fact, a good deal of rhetoric in his speech about freedom – and the threats thereto. Given what’s going on in France these days, that would only make sense. But his approach to his country’s – and the West’s – current travails was, to say the least, curious. On 9/11, asserted Macron, “many Americans had an unexpected rendezvous with death.” How poetic! How French! And how inappropriate a way to refer to thousands of people being evaporated one fine Tuesday morning. He made it sound as if death by jihad had been their divinely ordained destiny – as if the hijackers of those planes had been instruments of some cosmic will.

Macron went on to mention the “terrible terrorist attacks” that have struck his own country in recent years. “It is a horrific price,” he pronounced, “to pay for freedom, for democracy.” Meaning what? In what sense are such attacks the “price” we “pay for freedom”? Did Macron mean something like what London mayor Sadiq Khan meant when he said that living with terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city”? I’d say the people who died on 9/11 were paying for American leaders’ blithe indifference to the existential danger of Islam – and that those who’ve died in more recent terror attacks in Europe were paying for their own leaders’ cowardly irresolution (or outright defeatism) on the subject.

Macron might have said something gutsy about his fellow politicians’ culpability in the violent deaths of terrorist victims. But no. Like every other European-establishment political hack, he posed as a hero of freedom. Some hero: he didn’t dare breathe the word Islam or Muslim or even jihad. But what else to expect from a man who, as French author Guy Millière noted in March, has called for Arabic to taught in every French high school, for “cathedral mosques” to be built in every major French city, and for enhanced measures to be taken against critics of Islam?

Kanye Wants to Make America Great Again “Lot of people agree with me but they too scared to speak up.” Mark Tapson

Rap superstar Kanye West continues to confound his critics, both progressive and conservative, by sparking a crucial conversation about racial politics. I have previously written here and here on FrontPage Mag about Kanye’s controversial support for President Donald Trump and his defense of black conservative commentator Candace Owens, whose message that blacks need to exchange their victim mentality for a victor mentality resonated with Kanye. Despite volley after volley of media assaults suggesting that Kanye is a race traitor and even questioning his sanity, he hasn’t given an inch of ground, which is unheard of for a celebrity. Now he has triggered renewed leftist outrage by uploading a single on his website that Jerome Hudson at Breitbart News called “one of the boldest political statements in rap history.”

Titled “Ye Vs. The People,” the song features Kanye justifying his iconoclastic new stance in a rap dialogue with actor-rapper T.I., who represents the typical objections raised against Kanye for roaming off the Democrat plantation.

EXPLICIT LYRICS AHEAD

“Where you tryna go with this?” T.I. begins. Kanye replies, “You just readin’ the headlines, you don’t see the fine print / You on some choosin’-side shit, I’m on some unified shit.”

T.I. retorts that Kanye’s support of Trump, including posting a photo of himself with a MAGA hat, is selfish and short-sighted. “Bruh, I never ever stopped fightin’ for the people,” explains Kanye. “Actually wearin’ the hat’ll show people that we equal.”

To Promote Nonproliferation, Kill the Iran Deal Now The Europeans won’t do business with Tehran if that means losing access to American banks. By Jamil N. Jaffer

Will President Trump terminate the Iran nuclear deal? Many national-security experts are concerned he will, by refusing to waive sanctions that are up for renewal in mid-May. Some worry that unilaterally reimposing sanctions on Iran would isolate the U.S. internationally, as Europe’s leaders still broadly support the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Others argue that the JCPOA is working and Iran is largely abiding by its commitments. Still others urge the U.S. to continue waiving sanctions if the Europeans are willing to consider potential changes to the deal.

Each of these camps is deeply misguided. Should Mr. Trump refuse to continue the Obama -era policy of waiving Iran sanctions and opt to reimpose them unilaterally, Europe will have no choice but to go along. The key sanctions imposed by Congress in 2011-12—in the face of staunch opposition from the Obama White House—are “secondary” sanctions, meaning they operate by imposing costs on countries that continue to do business with Iran. Under this regime, every nation must choose between doing business with Iran and maintaining access to the American banking system. This isn’t a real choice, since no country can function economically by cutting itself off from the U.S.

Indeed, the Europeans lobbied hard against these sanctions—and convinced the Obama White House to do the same—because they knew they could never choose Iran over the U.S. They were right. When it became clear that congressional support for the sanctions was sufficient to override Mr. Obama’s threatened veto, Europe also went along, albeit unhappily. The massive economic pressure produced by the sanctions forced the Iranian regime to the negotiating table for the first time in years.

The Obama administration ultimately squandered its negotiating leverage on a weak deal with deep and enduring flaws: extremely short sunsets, after which Iran will be able to sprint to a nuclear weapon even faster than before; the ability to conduct research under the deal on advanced uranium centrifuges that will further shorten Iran’s breakout time; expanded testing of ballistic missiles that would widen the kill zone of an Iranian nuclear weapon; a self-testing regime on existing nuclear military sites that protects Iran’s illegal weaponization activities; sanctions relief providing an economic boost to the Iranian regime, removing significant pressure and providing the time, space, and resources to work on a valid warhead design; and no link whatever to Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region or support for terrorist groups world-wide like Hezbollah. CONTINUE AT SITE

U.S. Fighters for Taiwan The island democracy needs advanced air power to deter China.

Chinese bombers and warships conducted exercises near Taiwan this month, a show of force that officials in Beijing called a warning not to pursue formal independence. Last year the number of Chinese air patrols off Taiwan’s east coast quadrupled, and Beijing under President Xi Jinping has stepped up pressure on the island democracy to “reunify” with the motherland.

China’s bullying is raising alarms in the U.S., which is obligated to help Taiwan defend itself under the Taiwan Relations Act. The mainland People’s Liberation Army is deploying new jets, ships and other weapons in such numbers that the island’s defenses are in danger of being overwhelmed. Past U.S. Administrations failed to sell Taiwan the weapons it needs, and much of its arsenal is outdated.

The island’s most pressing need is air power. The mainstay of Taiwan’s fighter force is a fleet of 144 F-16s bought in the mid-1990s. Fewer than half the planes are ready for combat at any time, thanks to the maintenance required by aging aircraft and upgrades. Taiwan is pleading for new fighters to counter China’s advanced planes such as the Russian-made Su-35.

A Vicious Wolf Gives Trump the Last Laugh ‘She had some great one-liners,’ Douglas Brinkley said on CNN. He changed his mind. By Peter Funt

No matter how you feel about Donald Trump or the Washington-based journalists who cover him, you should be angered by what was offered Saturday as entertainment at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Michelle Wolf, recently of Comedy Central and soon to have her own series on Netflix , was foul-mouthed about Mr. Trump and downright cruel about members of his administration, several of whom were in the room. Worse, though it proved to be beside the point, she wasn’t funny.

“Trump is so broke,” she quipped, that “Southwest used him as one of their engines.”

She called Vice President Mike Pence a “weirdo”: “He thinks abortion is murder, which, first of all, don’t knock it till you try it. And when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you got to get that baby out of there.”

Ms. Wolf’s material—most of which was laced with too much profanity to print here—wasn’t about the First Amendment, as some suggested. Nor was it about the #MeToo movement, which she attempted at one point to hide behind. It was simply a Saturday Night Massacre of dignity and common sense.

It helped prove two unfortunate truths: First, the notion of having working journalists dress up for “nerd prom,” as they call it, and fawn over celebrity guests while listening to a hired comic roast the officials they cover each day was never a good idea. Now, in the freewheeling age of social media, it’s completely bankrupt.

Second, Mr. Trump was right to skip the event. No reasonable person, even among his harshest critics, would have expected him to sit through this. CONTINUE AT SITE

California Goes Rogue By Mark Krikorian

How the Golden State defies immigration law

‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.

The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue.

The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum.

At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities.