The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

Archive for the ‘murder’ Category

MOTHER, MAY I?

Virtually every American city which has what we euphemistically call an “inner city,” (translation being an area of urban blight and poverty, overcrowding, under-education and where single parent families are the norm), has one thing that provides some constancy.  That is that “progressives” (translation Democrats) have been in control for the better part of half a century or longer and have created the perfect conditions for all of this human tragedy.  While I can’t personally speak to the conditions throughout the country, after thirty-six years of living in Chicago I do feel qualified to address the disaster that city has become.

Moving from Manhattan at age seventeen was not only a nine hundred mile geographical relocation.  I felt as though I had moved back in time by a century.  Truly, I had the sense that I was now living in the Wild West – with all the disadvantages that entailed and few of the benefits of modern 1960’s society.  Perhaps those feelings came from snobbery.  But as involved as I was with classical music, I was shocked that the classical radio station WFMT went off the air at 10:00 p.m., the Chicago Symphony at that time was a mediocre ensemble and Chicago’s “opera scene” was only ten years old.

To usurp a Robert Heinlein title, I felt as though I were A Stranger in a Strange Land.

Well, I adapted.  I found a local store that sold used vinyl and the broadcast void was filled with recordings of all the masters, bought on the cheap.  I became used to the fact that in Chicago you couldn’t buy meat in the grocery stores after six in the evening, even though it was sitting there pre-cut in the display case.  (This was a concession to the butcher’s union).  And I later became aware that on “Days when members of the Illinois General Assembly were being elected, it was illegal to buy a drink at a bar or buy a bottle of liquor in a liquor store during the hours that the polls were open.”  As I was under the legal age to buy liquor at any time and didn’t drink it, I found that law amusing – because as I later came to view the Chicago political process, it seemed to me that the only conditions under which one would voluntarily vote for the hacks who held office for decades was if the voter were completely inebriated at the time of casting his ballot.

I’m not sure how my thirty-six year long experience with crime compared to that of other Chicago residents.  One mugging; one near mugging (rescued by my Irish Setter); one car stolen (twice in six months – the second time permanently); one car vandalized twelve times in sixteen months so the thieves could steal the Blaupunkt radios.  As I said, I don’t know how that experience compared to that of your average Chicagoan.  Nor was any of this the basis for my reason to move to Nevada.

It occurred to me that I was paying the State of Illiniois three percent of my income (now four and one half per cent) for the privilige of residing in the state.  Notwithstanding all the monies that Illinois extracted from its citizens, the state’s budget was completely out of balance, has only gotten worse and Illinois now finds itself right behind Puerto Rico in terms of defaulting on its obligations.  But that was not the motivating reason for moving.  The City of Chicago was.

I had been giving some thought to relocating and felt that I needed a change.  As most of us, myself included, fear change, after thirty-six years this was a big decision.  But what decided me was looking at the City of Chicago’s budget for the year 2001.  Included in that budget was a line item for five million dollars.  The expenditure was for something called an anti-graffitti campaign – to purchase equipment and pay for the manpower to remove the graffitti the city expected would be applied to public buildings in the following year.

Consider the thinking behind this one item.  Rather than attack the problem at its source, apprehending people who applied graffitti, the city’s solution was to tolerate the application of paint to its buildings and then return the buildings to their original appearance – at the taxpayer’s expense.  This “solution” is so typical of government’s approach to problem solving at all levels.  And it is infuriating.

It is akin to a man walking into the Emergency Room of a hospital with a gun shot wound, the bullet still embeded in his abdomen.  The attending physician, rather than removing the bullet, gives the man a narcotic based pain killer to remedy his discomfot.  If that were to happen, you can bet that the hospital and doctor would be served papers as the defendants in a medical malpractice law suit.

Many who self-apply the misnomer, “progressives” to their political philosophy view government intervention as the first step toward creating a paradise on earth.  But with the sort of thinking that treats symptoms rather than addressing the underlying problems, what they and their political minions do is ignore problems to the point that they fester – perhaps beyond repair.  And that is precisely what has happened in Chicago and other major cities.

This being the Memorial Day weekend, Chicago started off last Friday with several murders to give us more people to memorialize.  The first death was a fifteen year old girl and was what inspired this post.

Veronica Lopez’ was the first of four murders last Friday in the Windy City.  She was in a car on Lake Shore Drive and at 1:30 a.m. was gunned down when a car pulled up to the vehicle in which she was riding.  Her car was being driven by an unidentified 28 year old male, the presumed target of the attack.  Veronica was apparently an unintended victim of what the police believe is a gang related shooting.

Those who believe in the efficacy of “nanny government” should be inspired by how effective this form of overseeing our citizenry proved to be in this case.  You see, Chicago, like many other cities passed curfew laws regulating when juveniles might be out on the city’s streets when they are not accompanied by a legal guardian.  In Chicago’s case, all juveniles under the age of eighteen are prohibited from being out after 11:00 p.m. on weeknights.  That law has been on the books for over seventy years.

Veronica Lopez’ death would have been avoided if she merely had obeyed the law.  Her mother, Diana Mercado was understandably distraught at learning of her daughter’s death.  “They took my baby,”  she said.

Well, fifteen year olds don’t always exhibit the best judgment.  But sometimes parents don’t either – as in this case.  Ms. Mercado should ask herself, particularly if she has other children at home, if she is enforcing the sort of discipline that a parent has the right to command of her offspring.

Why did she allow her daughter to violate the curfew law?  Even more to the point in these days when acts of predatory rape are as common as grains of sand on the beach, why did she allow her daughter to hang out with and go driving with a twenty-eight year old male?

As a kid, I used to resent what I viewed as my parents’ over-protectiveness.  If a friend invited me to a party at their apartment, my parents wanted the phone number where I could be reached.  And while I could walk there by myself if it were light out, my father would pick me up if it was dark when the party ended.  This was back in the fifties when it was considerably safer for children than it is today.

But the important thing was that my parents strictly regulated what I could do.  I don’t remember going out more than a few times during my time in grammar and high school years on a school night – and then only after I had completed my homework.

The usual response I received as I requested to go out and asked, “Mother, may I?” was “No.”  I wonder if more parents today exercised their authority, laid down rules for their kids and enforced discipline for infractions of those rules, how many more fifteen year olds might be alive in Chicago – and elsewhere.

Advertisements

CAIN AND ABEL

1Adam knew his wife Eve intimately, and she conceived and bore Cain. She said, “I have had a male child with the LORD‘s help.”

2Then she also gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land’s produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] – some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast.

6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? 7If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

8Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”

And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

—Genesis 4:1-8

The Biblical account of Cain and Abel details how the first human born slew his brother, the second human to be conceived.  There is no description of how it was that Cain accomplished his fratricide but it is fair to guess that he didn’t use a Colt .45.

Whether it is jealousy, anger, pride, willfulness, mental illness, greed or war, there have been many reasons that one human has found justification for doing away with others of his kind.  And that has been an unfortunate truth about the human condition since humans first made their way upon the Earth.

For those of us who witnessed and participated in the Civil Rights movement going back to the early 1960’s, it is hard to escape the similarity of the act of terrorism that occurred at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC and bombings and lynchings that occurred fifty years ago in the deep South.   But with one very important difference.

In the ‘60’s there was at least a perception of near indifference on the part of those in elected position to the murderous tragedies which occurred to black Americans and today there has been a nearly universal outpouring of support which transcends racial lines at the deaths of the nine innocent Bible study participants who were summarily executed by the racist Dylann Roof.

The survivors of the nine victims exhibited an amazing amount of grace in the face of their losses, several of them openly forgiving Roof for his murderous acts.  That is a display of Christianity at it’s finest.  And it would have been uplifting if both President Obama and presumed Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton had merely expressed their sadness at this terrible incident rather than turning it into an opportunity to lobby for and make statements about gun control, as though mankind has only begun slaughtering one another since the gun was first invented.  At the very least their comments were both gauche and insensitive.

We have only to look at ISIS to know that no gun has ever been used to behead a person.  The story of Cain and Abel clearly demonstrates that until we as a race find a path to inner peace there will be neither peace nor justice among us.  And from our history, it appears that quest may be a long time in coming.

ZIMMERMANIA

Just when we began to focus on serious issues like the intensification of Radical Islamic terrorist attacks on Western Civilization, who pops up his head once again but none other than George Zimmerman.  You remember him, don’t you?  He’s the guy who shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Florida, was brought to trial and was acquitted.  That judgment resulted in some minor protests (though absent the burnings and lootings which subsequently have become fashionable) and an explosion in the sales of hoodies – much to the pleasure of the manufacturers in China where they are made.

Whatever you thought of the Zimmerman verdict, it’s pretty difficult to argue that George’s subsequent behavior would not suggest a person who is rapidly speeding downhill.  His latest arrest, as I recall his third, suggests that he is not coping too well with reality – or has abdicated much commitment to it.  And while it might be expedient to shake our heads and tut tut his behavior – drawing whatever inferences befit our personal views of the man  – I am surprised that the liberal left press hasn’t gone on to offer us an explanation for it, one that would be consistent with their worldview of other shooting deaths which also involved blacks.

We know from viewing the mainstream media that anyone who is murdered, irrespective of the circumstances, is always the victim.  That is particularly true if that victim happens to be darkly complected, the activity in which he was engaged prior to his expiration being irrelevant.  Just because he was robbing a convenience store or breaking a law prohibiting the sale of loose cigarettes is inconsequential.  There is always an explanation about how society doomed that person to a life of petty crime – or even more serious infractions.  But if we take that “logic” to its inevitable conclusion, that leads us to a paradoxical conundrum.

If we accept that lawbreakers have no free will but are merely marionettes whose strings are pulled in a certain predetermined sequence beyond their control, it seems only reasonable to apply that same robotic condition not just to one segment of society but to everyone.  Therefore, we should not try to convert the racist from his views but rather, accept his view on race as being nothing more than the manifestation of a condition which his environment has imposed upon him.  He is no more guilty of anything than the person who finds that cancer has invaded his body.  It’s just one of those things – a sort of “Deus ex machina” syndrome or to put it in Calvinistic religious terms, nothing more than the earthly expression of predestination.

It is clear that what might be construed as random events do have implications for our lives.  Prior to his encounter with Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman seemed to be quite a decent person.  He was involved in mentoring children, many of whom were black and certainly didn’t exhibit any reported issues which would suggest that he would become a violent person.  If we accept his version of the events that night, confirmed in the jury verdict, he was merely concerned that Martin was a threat both to him and to his neighbors.  Apparently, the local constabulary and the local DA agreed with his explanation and were prepared to let the matter drop.  Enter the DOJ.

Because the Holder Department of Justice has made a six year career of looking for and, inevitably finding, racial motivations in every instance where a black individual is slain by a non-black person, they succeeded in reopening the case and forcing the now famous trial.  And, despite Zimmerman’s acquittal, his life (and that of his family) were forever changed as a result of the trial, irrespective of the outcome.

Zimmerman was once a person who was considered a likeable person and a good neighbor was regularly portrayed in the media as a racist vigilante.  He went into hiding having received death threats.  Perhaps from the stress which we would all feel as a result of being publicly cast as a pariah, his relationship with his wife suffered and they were divorced.  He was involved in several road rage and speeding incidents and now, most recently, was charged with throwing a wine bottle at his current (soon to be ex) girlfriend.  But is any of this Zimmerman’s fault?  Or is he merely a hapless victim, brought to his current condition through a set of circumstances which were beyond his control?

If we accept the premise that the liberal left espouses, we would have to conclude that in the same way that Trayvon Martin was a victim of circumstance, (remember that if he had not been suspended from school for the third time, he might not have gone to the grocery store which led to the fatal encounter), Zimmerman is little more than a marionette whose strings were pulled by the media’s attention to his trial and by the public’s reaction to the way in which he was depicted.  In that light, his recent brushes with the law and domestic violence are little more than expressions of his condition – one which we might describe as Zimmermania.

While it might be comforting on an emotional level to believe that whatever we do can be explained away through some sort of concocted justification, it precludes us from ever being virtuous by doing good at the same time that we can never be criticized for venal behavior.  And if we accept that premise, we are closing the book on life in a moral society and are opening a volume with the one word title, “Chaos.”

THE SHARPTON SHOOTINGS

It would be unfair to lay the blame for the deaths of two officers of the NYPD in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood of Brooklyn solely at the feet of Al Sharpton.  There’s plenty of blame to go around among his coterie of haters – including Jesse Jackson, Louis Farakhan – among those who profess to be members of the clergy; and Obama, Eric Holder and Bill de Blasio among those who hold political office.  As to these two murders, while none of them pulled the trigger, they are as guilty as the crazed gunman who did.  We should all wait to see if the president will take time out from his Hawaiian vacation to announce that this was an act of “street violence.”  That it will be labeled for what it is – a hate crime – is totally out of the question.

Those who head up the Obama administration, starting at the top, have long abandoned any pretense of moral decency – if they ever possessed it.  And the president surrounds himself with people who are like minded – Sharpton being at the forefront of that group.  That the man has the effrontery to appear in public with his sordid background of inciting riot and manufacturing stories speaks to the general lack of morals in our society.  That he is part of the inner circle of the president speaks volumes to the level of immorality that permeates the White House.  This administration makes the people of Sodom and Gomorrah look like the epitome of virtue.

This tragedy is truly depressing – but it is unlikely to be the only such episode of its kind which we might expect.  There are a great number of thugs who roam freely in our neighborhoods – and many of them are armed.  And there are a sufficient number of people who will take this as the beginning of a war – and who will be prepared to fire the first shot – lest they themselves become victims.  There are already far too many victims in our inner cities.  And if the police determine that risking their own lives to protect the decent members of those communities from the scum who infest those neighborhoods is too great for them to do their jobs effectively, the number of victims will only increase.  Maybe the contingent of police who guard the mayor at Gracie Mansion should all call in with the “blue flu” to awaken “His Obtuseness” to the realities that exist in the city which he governs.

To the families of the two assassinated officers, I send my prayers and sympathy.  To those in positions of power who have implicitly encouraged this tragedy through their failure to support those in law enforcement,  it’s time to take an honest look at your own behavior.  If you endorse lawlessness, despite your exalted position and the additional protection that you receive thanks to the tax dollars of ordinary citizens, there is no guarantee or surety that any of us will be exempt from similar acts of violence.  That may be the legacy that you will have inscribed in the history books of the United States which will be written, long after all of us have departed this world.

WHITHER GOEST THOU, AMERICA?

As I write this we are within moments of learning the decision by a Grand Jury in Missouri.  It is as though this one verdict is the most important declaration ever to be pronounced.  To those poised to protest this panel’s expected decision it has significance far more sweeping than Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” and it has rewritten the Beatitudes.  “Blessed are the troublemakers.”  Most likely there will be violence.  It is expected.  It is planned.  It is an American tragedy.

The Founders recognized that only if the law were applied equally to everyone  would there be the possibility of achieving the Declaration’s proclamation that each of us is entitled to enjoy “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  That was as true at the founding of the nation as it is today.  And it is probably also true that while that goal is admirable, it has never been fully achieved.  That is not a condemnation of this lofty objective but rather a statement about us and how we allow our self-interest to corrupt the ideal.

The judicial system is an integral part of the political system.  Whether the voters directly elect those who are responsible for trying us if we are alleged to have committed an offence or are appointed by those whom we have elected to serve the municipality, state or the nation as a whole, judges are as much political by nature of their office as are our mayors and congressmen.  The Founders recognized that in describing the judiciary as one of three co-equal branches of government.

Of course, before a person is brought to trial there are others who are involved in the process which resulted in a hearing before the bar of justice.  Those are, at the first level, the law enforcement officers who apprehended the accused.  While there are undoubtedly some who discharge that office inappropriately, we rely on our police forces to help maintain some reasonable semblance of safety in society.  By and large, the occasional “rogue” officer who abuses his or her authority and sworn duty are the exception rather than the rule.  To attribute regular unlawful behavior to them is to do them a great disservice – and if that attitude is commonplace, then all of society will suffer as a consequence.  Even those with the greatest distrust of police forces, I suspect, if caught in a crossfire by two rival gangs as an innocent bystander, would hope that a squad car would show up on the scene.

Fortunately, like most Americans, I have had very little interaction with the police in my lifetime.  The first time was as a victim of an assault by three perpetrators wielding switchblades.  The second time was after some workmen stole some personal property while making repairs in my apartment.  The third and fourth times were to report the theft of my vehicle.  The fifth through sixteenth times were to report the theft of my car’s radio.  That’s been it.  I’ve never heard a knock on the door asking me my whereabouts at such and such time because I was a suspect in a robbery, an assault or a murder.  My total interaction was as a victim – not as a perpetrator.

In reference to these various episodes, I suppose that I might choose to be bitter because none of those who either assaulted me or stole my property was ever tried for their abuse of the law – at least not as it pertained to my particular interactions with them.  Perhaps they went on to further crimes and were apprehended for those.  I have no way of knowing that.  Should I therefore conclude that my experience demonstrates that the police are worthless?

Sadly, while it is a commonplace way of viewing life, extrapolating from one individual’s personal experience and drawing broad conclusions from it can be a dangerous and biased path to follow.  I know that police forces do indeed apprehend people who have committed more serious crimes than the ones in which I was involved.  I, for one, am glad that they are there – and I’m glad that they’re armed.  There are sociopathic people in this country who break the law and who constitute a threat to those of us who are law abiding.

While we should certainly remove those in our law enforcement offices who abuse their power and responsibilities, whether that is a local law enforcement officer, an attorney, a judge, the Attorney General or President who are ultimately responsible for seeing that the laws generally are enforced, the best advice on how to avoid confrontations with law enforcement might come from comedian, Chris Rock.

 

 

Perhaps Rock’s advice, had it been followed, might have made it so those of us who before August had never heard of Ferguson,MO, would still be living lives of blissful ignrance about its existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This principle, although probably lost on the majority of those who might protest the Grand Jury’s verdict, is at the heart of the matter.  They are not so much interested in justice as they are in the confirmation that the only justice that is acceptable is the one they dictate.  They look to mete out the vengeance handed out by vigilantes and the KKK to which some of their forefathers were subject.  They view that as proper retribution for the past misdeeds of others – now long gone to the grave.

A FAREWELL TO ARMS–AND COOKING

Whether it’s first rate sushi, shabu shabu or teppanyaki style cooking, I really enjoy Japanese cuisine.  Alas, I fear my days of being able to enjoy them in this country may be marked.  That is truly tragic.

If you’ve ever been to a Benihana restaurant then you’ve experienced teppanyaki cooking.  The meal is made at a counter where the master chef, with great flair, prepares your meal on the griddles that are in front of him, placing your food on your plate with a cleaver.  Part of the joy of seeing a teppanyaki meal being prepared is watching your chef throw his knives in the air, juggling them and then catching them as he then applies himself to slicing your shrimp or chicken or filet of beef.

A wonderful teppanyaki meal is both delicious and at the same time you get a show which makes an evening out less expensive and more filling than buying a ticket to see Cirque de Soleil.

Recently our esteemed Attorney General, Eric Holder proposed creating “smart” guns which would only be able to be discharged if the actual owner held and fired the weapon.  Naturally, our government will supply some of the cash to help bring about this technology.  If you’re not in the military and might have to pick up someone else’s gun to defend yourself, on the surface I guess that doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.  Naturally, we will have to round up all the thugs and their illegal weapons, retrofit them, and then return them to their owners in order to get this plan to be really effective.

It is understandable that in the wake of multiple shootings, most recently the one that occurred at Ft. Hood in Texas, that once again we turn our attention to the issue of gun violence.  If there were a workable solution to this problem, I would be the first in line to support it.  And although at one point in my life, I pooh-poohed the statement that, “Guns don’t kill people – people kill people,” I have to admit that as I’ve gotten older (and hopefully a bit wiser), I do see the merit of that comment.

Several days ago in Murrysville, PA a high school sophomore came to class, armed with several of his family’s kitchen knives, and then used them to slash or stab twenty of his fellow students and a security guard.  At this point there is no known motive for his behavior.  He is described as a “quiet young man who seemed to get along with his fellow students and teachers.”  That didn’t preclude him from going on a rampage for whatever reason.

Fortunately, there were no fatalities as a result of this attack.  But there might well have been.  After all, knives – even if they are designed simply for preparing meals – can be misused as this episode demonstrates.  Does that mean that Atty. Gen. Holder should proscribe their use in society?

Consider another potential hazzard to society, unveiled and documented for us by Hollywood. In sequel after sequel moviemakers have shown the potential for violence that the useful chainsaw can cause if it falls into the wrong hands.

Or let’s consider another recent event.  In Houston, Ana Trujillo was convicted of killing her boyfriend and today was sentenced to life in prison.  Her weapon of choice was one of her 5-1/2” stiletto heels.  Watch out shoe manufacturers.  Your product might well become the subject of lawsuits since you are apparently foisting on the unsuspecting, fashion conscious, unregistered lethal weapons.

Our world is fraught with danger.  I simply didn’t realize how readily available “weapons of individual destruction” were in our Discount Shoe Warehouses, Home Depots and Sur la Table stores.  But at least one good thing came out of these tragic stories.

Now I understand why, in traditional Japanese restaurants, they ask you to remove your footwear.

MURDER, MURDER EVERYWHERE AND NOT A POL WHO THINKS

The “leaders” of the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, other European countries and the United States have one agenda in common.  They seek greater inclusivity in their countries.  That sounds good and true inclusion for all is indeed an admirable goal.  It should be the philosophy of all open-minded and fair people, whatever their ethnic backgrounds, race, sexual orientation or religion.  But when you attempt to include people who have an agenda of self-perceived superiority, that effort is doomed to abysmal failure.  Such is the agenda of Islam.

In the U. S. we should have learned a lesson about forcing “equality” on our citizens back when Brown v. The Board of Education desegregated our public schools.  There is no question that, by and large, black school children received an inferior education than their white counterparts.  So we invented busing to integrate our public schools.  The result was not the elevation of the education that the newly integrated black students received, but the lowering of achievements that white students attained.

It seems that our focus in bringing “equality” almost always means that those who have or do more always get shoved down the path of mediocrity to become nearer to the levels of those who have less and do less.  While it is our stated goal to elevate the underdog, that seldom happens.  And the more we realize that our good intentions are falling short of our goals, the more radical the new programs that we invent in order to try to achieve them.

These radical programs evolve into an absolute hatred of anyone who doesn’t fit the standardized “norm” that is promulgated as the ideal for all of us.  And the rabid left will leave no stone unturned to undermine the success of those who have taken personal responsibility and succeeded.  Of course, their underlying theme is that these people have no right to that which they have earned.  As I recall, that was one of the themes that was preached as the Bolsheviks implemented their doctrine in Russia.

Unfortunately, we live in a land that was probably the greatest success for individual freedom and achievement.  That makes America the ideal target for those to whom success is anathema.  And we can see that in the continuing way that this administration actively degrades the Judaeo-Christian principles and practitioners who still exist in this country and favor those who are Muslim.

While the One Million Muslim march on 9/11/13 fizzled, radical Muslims are making regular inroads thanks to our politicians – not only here but in much of Europe.  From our perspective, Europe got a head start on us because of their proximity to many Muslim countries.  But we’re doing our best in America to catch up.

Islam is billed as a “religion of peace.”  Perhaps it is and perhaps there are many Muslims who hold to that ideal.  But when we hear of Islam it is not they who are on display doing acts of charity to those of other religions.  Rather, as we saw over the last several days, it is what we choose to call the “radical” Muslims in Pakistan, suicide bombing Christian churches and killing 85; or in Kenya where Somali Muslim terrorists slaughtered 62 and wounded another 175 in a shopping mall after identifying who were non-Muslims and executing them.  If this is peace, what must war look like?

What is particularly disturbing about the Kenyan incident is that some of the terrorist combatants apparently came from Canada, the UK and the U. S.  We can be sure that not all of those within those countries have emigrated to Somalia, the source of the Kenyan attack, and are here and living among us.

Both Europe and the U. S. have bent over backwards to “accommodate” Muslims and the end result is that the more they are placated the greater their demands.  It’s like trying to buy off the tantrums thrown by a spoiled child by acceding to his hissy-fits.  And ultimately, we produce a child who believes that bad behavior is the route to getting his way.  At some point, that behavior crosses the boundary either of civility or the law and we need to apply force to ensure the safety of those with whom he comes in contact.

That time is now here for western governments – the time to stop accommodating our Muslim residents and offer them exit visas to their destination of choice.  No one asked them to come and they are free to go to places which are more to their liking and which better suit their mores.  Or, if they choose to remain, then they need to accommodate themselves to the existing culture to which they have relocated.

Are there any politicians out there, anywhere in the western world who do not see the problem?  Or are they all too committed to their liberal vision of “inclusion” to admit to all the murders which are being perpetrated?

The thought of the rampancy of terrorism sometimes gives me nightmares.  But I suspect our pols, failing to face the all too obvious facts, sleep quite soundly.

 

Tag Cloud