Immigration: The next wave

Much has been written lately on global demographic trends. The disparity in birthrates between traditional Europeans and Muslim immigrants will alter the culture of Europe, unless these immigrants choose to shed their Muslim traditions and become European. That seems rather unlikely, since fundamentalism is more common among European Muslims than among Muslims in most Middle Eastern countries. Within thirty years Europe will have a Muslim majority, and it is likely that European constitutionalism will give way to the imposition of Islamic law. As Europe becomes Islamic, traditional Europeans will find it uncomfortable staying in an increasingly oppressive environment. They will soon be clamoring to leave their homelands, which will become more restrictive of the freedoms to which they have become accustomed.

Immigration to the US from Latin America is starting to level off, as our neighbors to the south move from the second stage of population growth (high birth/low death rates) to the third stage (low birth/low death rates). There will be less incentive to leave Latin America, as fertility rate decline and globalization increases living standards.

So the next wave of immigration to this country will not be impoverished people looking for employment opportunities, but more prosperous people seeking refuge from Islamic Law and hoping to maintain the freedom they had before Sharia came to dictate life in Europe.

This should be a boon to traditional American values, as the new immigrants will be those who have learned to appreciate the liberties they find here. It will also be a boon to property values, as these new immigrants will bring wealth with them and purchase homes upon their arrival.

Too cute by half

George W. Bush had his share of flaws as president, but one of his abiding strengths was his clarity on the most important issues of the day. He was never a good communicator, but you always knew where he stood. He was resolute on protecting America and was willing to put his popularity in the cross hairs of his opponents to do so. He opposed stem-cell research because he is pro-life, and was adamant against the use of tax-payer monies to fund abortions. The Bush clarity was maddening to the left, but was a source of comfort for many in the country who knew that they didn't have to guess on a daily basis where the president stood. Contrast that with Barack Obama, and you are struck by the difference. As during the campaign, Obama still seeks to be all things to all people, trying to split the middle in lawyer-like fashion in order to make everyone happy. His statements on many issues have been muddled and confused, because he is apparently interested in being able to argue both sides with equal conviction. It makes for a fine lawyer. But does it make for a good president?

Daniel Henninger has an interesting take on it today in an opinion piece entitled "Harry, I have a gift". Here's an excerpt:

Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."

The reason I have never forgotten this article is its last sentence, in which Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a book out next week, tells of congratulating freshman Sen. Obama on a phenomenal speech. Without a hint of conceit, Mr. Obama replied, "Harry, I have a gift."

He does. We know from tradition, though, that when the gods bestow magic on mortals, the gift can also imperil its possessor. The first hint of potential peril in Mr. Obama's gift arrived last week with the confusion over where the president stood on the terrorist interrogation memos and prosecution of former Bush officials. Here, as 19 years ago, many on both sides of a contentious issue who heard him speak thought Mr. Obama agreed with them.

Henninger goes on to discuss the confusion over the interrogation memos and the potential prosecutions of the memo-writers, when Rahm Emanuel said decisively "no" to prosecutions and the President said "well, maybe". The President was, as is his want, trying to give grist to the left in his public statement, while his staff later took great pains to clarify that he "wants to move on" from this chapter and isn't really interested in a prolonged "witch hunt", etc. It was splitting the difference in a way that Obama likes -- saying enough to appease his base but not so much that he can be pinned down to any clear position. It's Obama's way to use his "gift" to obfuscate and confuse, to distract people from his real intentions. He did it brilliantly during his campaign, where he appeared to be a moderate post-partisan politician who wanted to "change" Washington. The reality as we now know is quite different: a highly partisan pol who doesn't seem strong enough to stand up to the most partisan groups in the Democratic Party.

There is a very real danger when the gift for gab become a substitute for clear thought and concise communication. Perhaps the president's teleprompter has too much sway in this administration, taking the president on verbal forays that are too cute by half. It is bad enough when it confuses the American public. It is worse when it confuses our enemies into believing that we are weak and willing to compromise on even the most vital of national security issues.

I'd take clarity over the gift, any day.

'Suicide of West' imminent?

National Review listed James Burnham's "Suicide of the West" as one of the top 10 books that nudged America toward political conservatism in recent decades. (See rankings in their 50th anniversary edition.) Burnham was a young Trotskyite who turned against Communism and in his later years wrote for National Review. He wrote this book in 1964.

Burnham's thesis was that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

For a young person unschooled in political thought, such as I was, this thesis was difficult to believe. Both JFK and LBJ were aggressive in their Cold War liberalism, which in those days included a strong pro-American component. Even the true believers on the Left assured us that they were pro-American, despite appearances to the contrary. Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs and I.F. Stone were all leftist idealists, they never actually betrayed their country. Or so we were endlessly and emphatically told in the mass media and in our classrooms.

Well, it turned out that Burnham and his fellow conservatives were correct, and we had been lied to on virtually all fronts. We now know that Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Stone and many others on the American Left spied for the Soviet Union for years.

The leftists were not only for collectivism, they were against America and most of what it stood for. Their virulent assaults against the free market, against a strong military and against traditional American values were all of a piece. They regarded liberal journalists and liberal officials in all three branches of government as "useful idiots" and as loose allies in the steady drip of daily propaganda and assaults against America.

By now we are much further along in this process. Some of the most prominent liberal journalists and liberal Democratic leaders in government are no longer acting as merely useful idiots. Some of them are at last revealing themselves to be more malevolent than that.

This is most clearly seen in their move to prosecute those in the Bush admininistration who authorized the enhanced interrogation techniques (which they falsely call "torture") against a few of our top terrorist enemies.

We should recall at this point that the laws of war and the Geneva Convention clearly distinguish between (1) conventional soldiers and (2) nonuniformed terrorists who hide among civilians and attack from schools, mosques and civilian residences. Conventional soldiers, when captured, must be treated humanely. Nonuniformed terrorists, when captured, may be summarily shot.

Unfortunately, instead of shooting these vicious predators on the spot, our government unwisely treated most of them better than we have ever treated prisoners of war. They get better food in prison than our schoolchildren get in school cafeterias. There have been strict limits even on the interrogation techniques.

In three highly supervised cases waterboarding was employed to get vital information that saved many innocent lives. (Many of our own soldiers and sailors undergo waterboarding as part of their training, hence it is absurd to deem it "torture".)

But now many voices are telling us that this was unacceptable, that America's leaders must be punished, rather than thanked and honored, for this great so-called evil. They quote the Constitution much as Satan quotes Scripture, and they pretend to defend both America and the Constitution. However, this new thrust is clearly intended to demoralize those who are defending the country and to reduce or destroy America's future effectiveness in fighting our enemies.

Here at last the Left is taking a position that is so clearly anti-American that there is very little room at the margin for "useful idiots". Some Democrats on my "lunatic" list claim that foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield should be treated as if they were American citizens with Constitutional protections, but even for them that level of imbecility is not credible. Political maneuvering aside, their position can be seriously maintained for long only by the actual enemies of the United States.

For benefit of the lawyers and other confused citizens, let us apply the Left's argument in mirror image so that everyone can see just how bonkers it really is.

The FDR administration put more than one hundred thousand Japanese American citizens in concentration camps during World War II. This was clearly a much more heinous crime against humanity than waterboarding three Al-Qaeda terrorists. We should therefore prosecute all those Democrats still alive who had anything to do with perpetrating that great injustice. Correct?

The LBJ administration entered the Viet Nam conflict on the false and exaggerated claim of being attacked near the Gulf of Tonkin. This resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and sailors and of millions of Asians. We should therefore prosecute all those Democrats who had anything to do with perpetrating and acting on that falsehood. Correct?

The Reagan administration's retributive attack across Libya's "line of death" in 1986 happened to kill Gaddafi's innocent young daughter. We should therefore prosecute all the Republicans who had anything to do with that attack. Correct?

The Obama administration's attacks on Taliban and Al-Qaeda terrorists using Predator drones and other means also produce collateral damage, killing innocent children and others, without benefit of legal hearing or trial by jury. Also the suspects are not even given their Miranda warnings. We should therefore (as Ted Olson has recommended in a recent thought experiment) prosecute everyone in the Obama administration who has anything to do with these attacks whenever they occur. Correct?

No, of course these assertions are clearly not correct. The concept is intended to be used only against the "evil" Bush administration, which in fact was trying with the best of intentions to protect America in a legally acceptable manner.

However, war is not police work, never has been, and never can be. The concept of prosecuting actions like this, if taken seriously, would degrade or destroy our ability to defend ourselves. But that is the whole idea. Our domestic enemies will now have another powerful new tool to weaken us, if we have become so confused and lacking in will as to allow it.

In summary, James Burnham was both correct and extremely prescient. Liberalism is indeed the ideology of Western suicide. We will see this in spades during the next four years.

Against all enemies

Slated on Backbone Radio, Apr. 26 Listen every Sunday, 5-8pm on 710 KNUS, Denver... 1460 KZNT, Colorado Springs... and streaming live at 710knus.com.

The oath so many Americans have sworn, "to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," has a quaint and outmoded ring to it in this new age of Obama the Apologist, Obama the Meek. Who believes in enemies any more? We do, here at Backbone Radio. Sorry, all you dreamy pacifists out there. It's still a dangerous world, with plenty of nations and groups who wish us ill. Enemies is the only name for them, and strength is the only language they understand. Wishful thinking in the White House won't change that.

** This Sunday's show will take a global focus and a national security theme. I'll talk about how to protect our country with Richard V. Allen, former Reagan and Nixon adviser... Michael Tanji of the Center for Threat Awareness... and Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

** Plus Joseph C. Phillips, our man in Hollywood... and Rob "Sunny" Roseman, veteran of TV news in Denver.

Less than 100 days into the new administration, and we're told the terrorists can't be called that any more, but the patriots who advised on stopping them belong in jail. It's like a bad dream, only worse because this is real. If America is to be defended, you and I must stand strong as never before. In a word, the need is backbone. Here goes.

Yours for America the Good, JOHN ANDREWS

Easter 2009: Sardis & America

He is risen! Hallelujah! In reading the letter of Jesus Christ to Sardis (Rev 3:1) , I came across this: "I see right through your work. You have a reputation for vigor and zest, but you're dead, stone-dead!" The meaning for us today is clear! Even though some of these massive "Community Churches" may have large youth groups and a growing fellowship, they do so by making compromises with secular world, to be considered “modern” and to avoid condemnation and persecution! In other words, by turning their back on the Gospel! They tend towards the feel good fast food spirituality: "Let’s help people with their lives...God wants you to buy your wife some new lingerie! Let’s all hold hands, be one with nature, and sing Kum-ba-yah"!

What else can you call the ordination of practicing sodomites, or the silence regarding abortion that murders 3500 souls a day anything but compromises with secularism for the sake of popularity? Or worse, the rewriting of Holy Scripture to delete the miracles and to change God the Father to "Mother Nature" ?

Certainly the church in Sardis avoided persecution as do many of these massive Community Churches! Satan figures that things are progressing nicely enough in his favor that he doesn’t have to bother with them!

I attended a funeral at one of these churches. Over the lectern was the sun disk of the ancient Egyptian god Ra, complete with the emanating winged rays that encompassed the entire worship space! No Gospel here!

I can't help but think that the Islamic threat to Western Civilization is no more than a warning to us to change our ways. Prior to the destruction of the Temple in 586 BC, the Israelites considered themselves "bullet-proof" owing to God’s residence in the Temple’s Holy of Holies. They ignored the prophets who warned the Israelites that this wasn't true! (see Ezk. 10:18)

Today, as Islam encroaches on our society like a growing cancer, we are ignoring the threat as did the Israelites the Assyrian threat. The secularists assume that since America won its war in 1945, it will remain invincible forever! In the age of open borders and smuggled suitcase nuclear weapons, how can this be true!

One can only think that as our society is set ablaze, it will serve to burn away the dross of complacent secularism and leave only a purified remnant to carry on with the true foundations of our civilization: faith, perseverance, responsibility and integrity.