Thursday, November 26, 2015

The Schengen Agreement, Syrian Invasion, and Refugee Resettlement

If you cross the border illegally in most countries you are going to jail for a long time, you are beaten, raped, tortured, you may not be heard from again, and you may be treated as a spy; in the U.S. you may be caught, released, if you are lucky, or deported to come back again.

If you cross into Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, you are going to receive the following: social insurance, mobile phones loaded with free cards, free health care, spending money, free housing, free language classes, free transportation passes on buses, metro, and trains, free child care, supplements for every child, free legal assistance in deportation cases, no personal responsibility for anything, and more rights than citizens.

On June 14, 1985 five countries, Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed an agreement in Schengen, Luxembourg to gradually abolish border checks at their common borders. At that time, there were ten members of the European Economic Community but only five chose to sign this agreement.

“Measures proposed included reduced speed vehicle checks which allowed vehicles to cross borders without stopping, allowing residents in border areas freedom to cross borders away from fixed checkpoints” and visa policies were “harmonized.”

The Schengen Agreement (SA), fully operational in 1995 only between the signatories, was incorporated into the European Union law in 1999 via the Amsterdam Treaty. Two members chose to opt out: the United Kingdom and Ireland.

SA currently includes 26 European countries, covering a population of over 400 million people and an area of 1,664,911 square miles.

The Schengen Agreement is the enabler that facilitated the European Invasion by able-bodied “refugees,” 20-40 year old men supposedly from Syria and a few women and children, who are really looking for better economic opportunities away from tribal wars in the areas in which they live. Instead of staying to make their countries better, they flee to specific countries like Germany and Sweden that have more generous welfare systems.

If these were true refugees, why are the majority young men, why are they fleeing instead of fighting and leaving behind women and children in the path of danger? And why are the surrounding Muslim countries refusing to take them in under the excuse that they are dangerous, when they speak the same language, share the same culture, religion, and Sharia Law? They are dangerous for the Middle East but not dangerous for the west?

Why is Saudi Arabia not taking in 3 million refugees to fill up the empty, air-conditioned tents in the desert? They can certainly afford it and it is the brotherly and humane thing to do. Unless there is an ulterior motive, one called hijrah.

Leaving a war zone to a neighboring country makes one a refugee. But the moment one steps out of one safe country and enters another safe country, one becomes an immigrant.  Looking for a better place to live does not make one a refugee. And paying coyotes thousands of dollars, crossing illegally into many countries, with fake passports, makes one an illegal alien and a criminal.

The Guardian reported that these global “refugees” are now taking “long detours through Latin America to reach the U.S.” Five Syrian men had been detained in Honduras with fake Greek passports and eight Syrians turned themselves in at the Texas-Mexico border the week before in a sinister development that does not bode well for the United States. Migrants from Nepal, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Pakistan are joining “the flood of Central American migrants seeking refuge from violence” and the generous American welfare system.

According to the Guardian, Colombian investigators found that the trek from Asia or Africa to the U.S. via Latin America can cost upwards of $12,000. The five Syrians had passed through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, and Costa Rica before were detained in Honduras. The Guardian cites Ecuador as having removed visa requirements for all nationalities and it thus became a major point of crossing for all traffickers. Is Ecuador accepting refugees? No, they just drop them at the border.

Our regime’s policy, to “welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety” is what we must do because “slamming the door in their faces would be betrayal of our values,” got an interesting response from Mark Krikorian – “Relocating refugees from the Middle East to the U.S. is morally wrong.”

His argument had nothing to do with the fact that it is impossible to adequately screen “refugees” from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan because there are no databases to compare these refugees to. Even if we could somehow keep out the terrorists and only admit peaceful Muslims, “the goal is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available.”

Quoting the Center for Immigration Studies, Kirkorian said that “it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East.” The five-year cost of resettling one refugee is $64,000 while the U.N. indicated that a five-year cost for the same refugee in their native region cost $5,300.

Kirkorian said that “each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money.” The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, “reports a $2.5 billion funding shortfall in caring for Syrian refugees in the Middle East.”

Can we and should we do both? As much as we are humanitarians and we like to help our peaceful fellow men, resources are finite and we should help our own poor citizens, our veterans, and our elderly first.

U.N. estimates put the number of refugees and displaced people around the world at 60 million. Can we afford social services for the 90 percent of refugees that would receive food stamps, SSI, 75 percent on Medicaid, and other welfare programs when they have little education and earning potential, pay little taxes, and would likely become wards of the state and the counties in which they would be settled?

Roy Beck of made an interesting presentation in 2010 on “Immigration, World Poverty, and Gumballs,” asking the question, “Who deserves our humanitarian compassion?” According to the World Bank, it should be people who make less than $2 per day. By this yardstick, Beck said, there are 650 million people in Africa, 890 million in India, 480 million in China, 810 million in Asia, 105 million in Latin America, for a total of 3 billion, yet the United States takes in one million immigrants every year.

Unfortunately, our legal immigrants do not come from the $2/day group; they come from “the better-off poor,” with the majority from Mexico. According to World Bank, 5.6 billion people have an average income below Mexico’s.

Are we really making a dent in the world’s poverty rate even though we are importing legal and illegal immigrants regardless of the impact on our own people, on our own unemployment?

These poor countries add 80 million more impoverished people through their birth/death rate every year. We would never get ahead even if we took in 5 million immigrants each year, Beck said. We would just affect our own welfare.

The immigrants we take in are not the $2/day earners because they usually stay where they are.  Beck concluded that “Immigration can never be an effective or significant way to help the suffering of the world. They have to be helped where they are. They must make their lives better where they live.”

The small counties and towns were these “refugees” are resettled in the dead of night are ill-prepared to take them in; have no additional resources to care for their children in schools and in hospitals; subsidized housing is scarce; nobody speaks English; and do not know what mental health issues and diseases they may harbor in order to treat them appropriately.

As Ann Corcoran said, it is “dropping needy people” in the middle of small town America. The U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) chooses refugees without the approval of local residents. UNHCR is under the influence of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Corcoran said. “Not surprisingly, a large number of U.S. bound refugees come from countries with large numbers of people that hate us – Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon from Syria, just to name a few.”

Ann Corcoran explains in her video that “the U.S. State Department distributes the refugees to 9 major federal contractors:

-          Church World Services

-          Ethiopian Community Development Council

-          Episcopal Migration Ministries

-          Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

-          International Rescue Committee

-          U.S. Commission for Refugees and Immigrants

-          World Relief Corporation

-          Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services

-          U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Six of these so-called religious charities are largely funded by U.S. Treasury.” The “refugees” are sent to 190 cities and towns in the U.S., particularly to states with largest Muslim populations - Texas, California, New York, Michigan, and Florida.

These “refugees” are given help for six months by 350 subcontractors around the country, then “they submit paperwork to admit the relatives of the first group.” Corcoran believes this is hijra (Muslim colonization) and wrote a book to explain it called “Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”  How many Christians are among these refugees?

A shadow layer of government, non-governmental organizations with their unelected bureaucrats, faceless faith-based lobbyists, ignoring the wishes of the American people, with billions from the U.S. Treasury, is forever changing the dynamics and the demographics of our society. Many have asked, is this a stealth manufactured refugee crisis pushed by the U.N. and a forced social engineering scheme to redistribute the wealth of the west and to spread Islam in the cradle of western and Christian civilization?

Most Americans I know are not racists or xenophobes and don’t worry as much about the immediate or long-term forced immigration cost as they do about their own safety and survival of their country as a Christian nation. They do not trust their government to protect them.









Wednesday, November 25, 2015

For-Profit Hospitals Are Compatible with Universal Health Care

The Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank released a study today which found that “based on experiences of other countries, for-profit hospitals and insurers are compatible with universal health care.”

The study analyzed the universal health-care systems of six countries – Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland.

Bacchus Barua, senior economist at Fraser Institute and co-author of “For Profit Hospitals and Insurers in Universal Health-Care Countries,” said that “Contrary to the way they are often perceived in Canada, for-profit hospitals and insurers are part of high-performing health care systems in other countries.”

One of the reasons that prompted the study was the misperception that a private, for profit medical facility is “incompatible with universal-access health care.” Yet, according to the authors, “poor access to medical services and middling outcomes and safety despite high spending” seem to plague Canada’s health care system which appears in need of reform.

The study highlighted the numbers of hospitals in countries with universal healthcare:

-          Sweden has 77 public, 3 for-profit and 3 not-for-profit  (n/a)

-          France has 928 public, 688 private not-for-profit, and 1041 private for-profit (2012)

-          Switzerland has 61 public,  82 private not-for-profit, and 150 private for-profit (2013)

-          Germany has 833 public, 1,040 private not-for-profit, and 1,356 private for-profit (2012)

-          Netherlands  has zero public, 180 private not-for-profit, and 79 private for-profit (2012)

-          Australia has 753 public, 115 private not-for-profit, and 477 private for-profit (2011)

In Canada private for-profit parallel insurance is not allowed and only a small number of private for-profit hospitals can be found. In the countries studied, the authors found that all “have incorporated for-profit hospitals and insurers into their universal health-care policy framework.”

Universal access to health care is the “principle that all citizens (or residents) can obtain health-care services irrespective of income or pre-existing health status.” A public hospital or clinic is owned and operated by the government with various degrees of efficiency or inefficiency. A private hospital is owned by an individual or a group and it can be either for-profit or not-for-profit. In the case of private not-for-profit hospitals, any kind of profit is reinvested in the hospital or clinic.

The six countries in the study were chosen based on the following criteria:

-          The countries “share a common goal of access to high-quality care, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay” (I note that access to high-quality care does not necessarily mean delivery of high-quality care.)

-          Spending a proportion of GDP on healthcare comparable to Canada’s expenditure

-          The countries “provide similar or superior access to, and quality of care, in comparison to Canada’s health-care system across a range of metrics”

-          Public data is readily available

The metrics criteria included the number of physicians, nurses, MRI units, CT scanners, hospital beds, same or next-day appointments when sick, wait time for specialist appointment (4  weeks), wait time to be treated when sick (2 hours or more), wait time for access to doctor or nurse (6 days), wait time for specialist appointment (2 months), wait time for elective surgery (4 months), post-operative sepsis, retained surgical item or unretrieved device fragments left in a patient after surgery, COPD hospital admission, uncontrolled diabetes admissions, asthma admissions, ischemic stroke 30-day in-hospital mortality, colorectal cancer five-year relative survival, cervical cancer five-year relative survival, and breast cancer five-year relative survival.

The authors describe the types of primary and secondary coverage in each country and how the insurance and the medical costs are being paid – either by direct tax levies, tax surcharges, or government-mandated insurance in which case the government heavily regulates the single insurance-provider and determines salaries of medical personnel, doctors, nurses, and the cost of each procedure, of doctor’s visits, and of medications.

Barua said that, “Clearly, based on the examples of the industrialized countries, private for-profit hospitals and health insurers are compatible with universal health care.” Nadeem Esmail, the study’s co-author, added the “Private for-profit hospitals and insurers support some of the best universal access health-care systems in the developed world – systems superior to Canada’s timeliness, accessibility, and outcomes despite similar or lower health expenditures.”

The Fraser Institute study seems timely as 12 of the 23 Obamacare co-ops that were meant to provide “lower cost health insurance not driven by the profit motive,” are failing so quickly after the implementation of the not-so-affordable 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), costing taxpayers $1.2 billion in defaulted loan payments. A long list of patients must now struggle to find health insurance comparable to what they had before and must find new doctors.  As the New York Post is quoted, “Add 250 New York cancer patients on the long list of victims of ObamaCare’s lies – just one more snapshot of the program’s ongoing death spiral.

Who thought that it would be a good idea to “fundamentally transform” and destroy the healthcare of 85 percent of Americans who were happy with their insurance carrier, their affordable premiums, their doctors, their healthcare, their hospitals and clinics, so that 15 percent of Americans, who were either already insured under Medicaid, voluntarily not insured, had pre-existing conditions, or in this country illegally, would have insurance? Would it not have been cheaper to buy insurance for these 15 percent of uninsured, implement tort reform, and allow the sale of health insurance across state lines?

Robbing $716 billion from Medicare (from our elderly population) in order to pay for ObamaCare’s costly implementation was a bad idea, especially at a time when our national debt exceeds the GDP and is thus unsustainable.

What good is having expensive bronze, silver, or gold Obamacare insurance through state exchanges if the care is not available and sketchy; nobody can afford the huge premiums even with subsidies; the co-pays are large; patients cannot find doctors and specialists because many have retired or are not accepting Obamacare;  and an insufficient number of new doctors were trained. And is it insurance or is it a tax? It depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, kiss your good medical care good bye and put your worthless plastic card back into your wallet.

As far as the rest of the developed world is concerned, where are their elites going to fly to in order to get the best medical care in the world once America becomes full victim of socialized medicine? Who is going to study medicine if the rewards become so slim and the government will regulate their salaries, services, and fees? And, since Congress and their staff have exempted themselves from Obamacare, how and where are they getting medical care?



Saturday, November 21, 2015

The Chickens of Communism Have Come Home to Roost

Joe McCarthy
The chickens of intolerance and communist social justice have come home to roost on the American campus. Decades of Marxist indoctrination by the vaunted communist academia are finally paying off -- our cultural heritage is replaced by cultural Marxism and primitive cultures that are deemed superior to ours and worshipped.

Academia has been blotting out the past and revising history for a while but with increased vengeance since Jimmy Carter founded the U.S. Department of Education on October 17, 1979. Our children’s education has depreciated considerably as evidenced by test scores and the quality of mis-educated youth in our country who can barely read or write a complete and coherent paragraph. But their fingers fly on Twitter in hashtags and 140 characters, staring constantly like robotic drones into illuminated smart devices.

The urban dictionary defines cultural Marxism as “The gradual process of destroying all traditions, languages, religions, individuality, government, family, law and order in order to re-assemble society in the future as a communist utopia. This utopia will have no notion of gender, traditions, morality, God or even family or the state.”
There is no shortage of Lenin’s “useful idiots” with brains addled by drugs and agitated by paid Alinsky-style community organizers. “Useful idiots” are easily manipulated individuals without a compass, without a country, with allegiance to global citizenship and Mother Gaia, humans ruled by emotion and devoid of rational thinking. They are used skillfully to implement cultural Marxism, to disseminate poisonous ideas, chaos, decadence, and worthless entertainment parading as art.

Spreading around the country, the Black Lives Matter, on the payroll of elitist billionaires who want to change society in their utopian global Marxism, have taken over campuses around the country making outrageous demands of administrators who shockingly acquiesced without a whimper or resigned with a golden parachute. The university, the bastion of freedom of speech and assembly, of tolerance, of diversity, caved like a house of cards to the demands of a few crazed lunatics, rusted 60s wheels squeaking the loudest the same worn-out communist drivel.

Why exactly are we sending our children to college? Are we paying overpriced tuition to transform them into radicals crying racism, bigotry, and manufactured white privilege, in the most tolerant country in the world, while they take full advantage of minority grants, minority scholarships, affirmative action, and quotas?

How did we reach such a point where waves of protests across the country are turning upside down the former bastions of higher education into a grotesque and intolerant self-segregating quagmire?

The Black Justice League at Princeton demanded that any building named after former President Woodrow Wilson be renamed and a safe space be created “dedicated specifically to Black students,” mandating “classes on the history of marginalized peoples” and “affinity housing for people interested in black housing.” Appallingly, President Eisgruber agreed.

Whatever happened to exposing students to other points of view? What happened to tolerance of divergent opinions? Is the majority going to be ignored while listening only to those who threaten and bully? Aren’t people tired of faux accusations of bigotry, white privilege, and racism?

Are we going to revise now the entire history of the United States because someone along the way must have been offended and that offensive historical occurrence must be redressed now by wiping out or removing those reminders from textbooks? Are we going to empty out museums, bulldoze monuments, and burn libraries?

Aren’t these demands “a thinly veiled attempt to impose the Black Justice League’s unilateral narrative upon all undergraduates via the core curriculum?” Isn’t racially segregated housing illegal and morally questionable, counter to the values of American society? Why are we stifling academic freedom and reversing years of race relations progress?

Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, a KGB propagandist and defector, was interviewed by G. Edward Griffin in 1984. During this lengthy interview, Bezmenov explained the method of ideology subversion, a form of psychological warfare, a deliberate sabotage that changes the subjects’ perception of reality.  Such method of brainwashing was so successful that, in the face of ample evidence, documentation, facts, and knowledge, students still believe what their academic handlers told them in schools, in movies, and in the main stream news. Bezmenov described how this massive brainwashing by design occurred in four stages.

The first stage was demoralization. Teachers had to educate three generations and expose them to Marxist-Leninist ideology without a counter-balance of American values. To a demoralized person, facts have no meaning even when they are showered with authentic information. Bezmenov said, “If I take them and show them the concentration camps in the Soviet Union, they would not believe me until the boot of reality kicked them in the rear end.” To reverse this trend to a normal generation that believes in American values, common sense, culture, and patriotism, one would need at least 15 years, he added.

Most people who were educated in the 1960s are now in positions of power. They were programed to act a certain way even when exposed to accurate information. The process of demoralization is irreversible, he said.

A subverter needs 2-5 years to engage in the second stage of ideology subversion called destabilization. During this stage, the entire nation is destabilized through the economy, through foreign relations, and defense.

The third stage of ideology subversion is called crisis and it usually lasts about six weeks.

The fourth stage is called normalization when “all the shmucks that eliminated the free market competition are now in power.” The country is at war with itself and in chaos. Once this level is reached, Americans will have nowhere to escape, said Bezmenov.

Who are the “useful idiots” who aid and abet this psychological subversion? They are the academia, media people, actors, movie makers, narcissists, people with no scruples and no conscience, people filled with self-importance who think that they matter a lot, greedy individuals, and people who will look you in the eye, smile, and lie to you. These “useful idiots” are helpful in the destabilization stage, but expandable afterwards, explained Bezmenov.

If people fail to understand the concept of Big Brother Government and the Welfare State, forgetting patriotism, cultural heritage, and history, all freedoms will vanish.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Would President Trump Fix the "Broken" Immigration?

We keep hearing that our current immigration system is broken and it must be overhauled to better serve the immigrants, especially the illegal ones. And in this process, it seems that immigration, whether legal or illegal, is not necessarily run in the best interest of the American people, but in the best interest of crony capitalists and the ruling elites.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency with the Department of Homeland Security, was created in 2002 and assumed its functions on March 1, 2003, as a result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. USCIS has over 200 offices around the world and staffs 19,000 employees and contractors in four directorates and nine program offices. Applications are processed in four major USCIS Service Centers and 83 Field Offices in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Funding USCIS operations largely from user fees, less than 4 percent of its FY2014 budget came from Congressional appropriations. According to William A. Kandel, writing in a Congressional Service Report in May 2015, $124 million USCIS funding came from direct congressional appropriations and $3.097 billion came from user fees in 2014.

Over twenty years ago, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was transformed by creating the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) in 1988 to fund the agency’s activities. “The agency has two other small accounts that were created to support specific purposes both within and outside USCIS: the H-1B Non-Immigrant Petitioner Fee Account; and the H-1B Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee Account.”

When DHS receives its annual funding, USCIS also receives its direct appropriations. In previous years, Congress also funded special projects through direct appropriations such as backlog reduction. In recent years, according to CRS, appropriations have exclusively funded E-Verify and immigrant integration grants. E-Verify is a system that electronically confirms if individuals have proper authorization to work in the United States.

INS was legally allowed to charge fees for immigration services even before the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA). When the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) was created, USCIS collected most of its budget from user fees, and its budget was no longer subject to annual congressional approval. Congress has little or no influence on our immigration policies and enforcement.

Our President issued on November 20, 2014 the Immigration Accountability Executive Action which included provisions such as an expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program started in 2012, and the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program that “grants certain unauthorized aliens protection from removal, and work authorization, for three years.”

Applicants submit petitions and pay user fees to USCIS which “would purportedly pay for the cost of administering the program.” This executive action benefited 5 million unauthorized aliens living in the United States. “The deferred action programs of the President’s executive action have been temporarily enjoined.”

Some Congressmen, reflecting the wishes of their constituents, oppose deferred action programs but have little or no options to stop the programs using the annual funding process. They cannot control an agency which is largely independent of Congress. To change this situation, an enactment of law would be required which Congress does not seem interested in pursuing, as the illegal immigration debacle continues unabated despite the recent violent attacks in Paris by “refugees” from Syria and elsewhere who were allowed into EU unrestricted.

While some are happy that USCIS reduces the burden of cost to American taxpayers, others are concerned over the lack of congressional oversight on its activities and its lack of accountability to Congress.

Additional potential issues include the level of fees that may prevent potential applicants from seeking benefits or deter lawful permanent residents from becoming citizens; the pace and progress of information technology modernization may not serve legal petitioners efficiently, causing huge backlogs of 4 million legal applications; and the inability of Congress to oversee the adequacy of personnel management and resources.

With the leading purpose of processing immigrant petitions, USCIS handled in 2014 six million petitions for immigration-related services and benefits. USCIS performs other functions:

-          Adjudication of immigration and naturalization petitions

-          Refugee and asylum claims and related humanitarian and international concerns

-          Immigration-related services such as issuing employment authorizations

-          Petitions of nonimmigrant change-of-status

“Humanitarian functions have no associated fee” but the following do levy user fees:

-          Immigration adjudication

Of the 6 million petitions processed each year, 1 million are for permanent status and 5 million are for temporary non-immigrant status; adjudicators determine if immediate relatives and family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident (LPRs) are eligible; if employees U.S. businesses demonstrate they are needed and no other Americans are available; they also determine if foreign nationals on a temporary visa are eligible to change to another non-immigrant status or LPR status

-          Work authorization

Screens aliens for work under certain conditions

-          Employment verification

Checks lawful status to work in the United States (since FY2007, congressional appropriations have funded the E-Verify)

-          International Services

USCIS Office of International Affairs “adjudicates refugee applications and conducts background and record checks related to some immigrant petitions abroad;” a component of this program is the asylum officer corps who interview and screen asylum applicants; according to USCIS, “a person seeking asylum is applying for protection from persecution for the same reasons as a refugee but, unlike a refugee, is present in the United States”

-          Fraud Detection and National Security

This office flags applications and petitions that trigger national security and criminal database notifications; such duties, formerly performed by INS enforcement, are now under the responsibility of DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

-          Civic Integration

Instructing and training on citizenship rights and responsibilities via a Citizenship Resource Center website and via the Immigrant Integration Grants Program “which assists public or private nonprofit organizations that provide citizenship instruction and naturalization application services to LPRs

-          Naturalization

Granting U.S. citizenship to LPRs; adjudicators must check if aliens have continuously resided in the U.S. for a specific period of time, have good moral character, are able to read, write, speak, and understand English, and have a basic knowledge of U.S. civic and history;

Do unsavory characters who are not worthy of American citizenship or of refugee status slip through the adjudication process? Of course they do, the terrorist Tsernaev brothers come to mind.

One of the biggest criticisms of USCIS is that petitions are still processed in the “outmoded” paper form and there are constant complaints of lost files. Since 2008 USCIS has embarked on IT Modernization and Client Services in order to “improve information sharing, workload capacity, and system integrity.” Eventually the system will be “paperless, centralized, and consolidated, ensuring national security and integrity, customer service, operational efficiency, and quality in immigration benefit decisions.” (Fiscal Year 2016 Congressional Budget Justifications, p. 3357)

Since Congress is so weak and unwilling to protect our borders, our American interests, and our sovereignty, would a President Trump be ready to use his executive pen to stop the flood of illegal immigrants by building a fence, enforcing current immigration laws, and deporting criminal illegal aliens?



Sunday, November 15, 2015

The Paris Massacre, Social Justice, and Redistribution of Wealth

Social justice is defined as “promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity.” It can only exist when “all people share a common humanity and therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of community resources.”

There are many problems with this definition. The most glaring is the fact that “personal responsibility” does not seem to be a variable. Another problem is the fact that, to quote Dr. Savage, “Without quality there can be no equality.” Thirdly, this much touted and failed diversity/multiculturalism is causing severe problems in the west as the advancing hordes of Muslim “refugees” are causing massacres, chaos, and destruction in Paris and in Europe, soon to emerge in the U.S.

Not all people share a common humanity, some are quite barbaric. Western societies have built a civilization based on huge libraries of knowledge whereas theocracies like Islam base their entire existence on one book to the exclusion of all else. Additionally, allocating community resources fairly from an economic stand point is logistically impossible unless governments steal from one group or persons and give to others.

From Pope Pius XII, the much beloved, anti-communist and anti-Nazi Pope, to the current overtly socialist Pope Francis, the 266th pontiff of the Catholic Church, the church has undergone transformational changes. These changes are influencing the politics of the globe and shifting the role of the papacy from caring for the souls of parishioners to promoting global socialism through redistribution of wealth, social justice, and submission to the politics of the climate change industry.

In his 224-page document, “The Joy of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium), Pope Francis criticized the following.

-          The current capitalist inequalities

Do progressives, who criticize capitalism as evil, understand that socialism and communism were never equal, inclusive, kind to the people, and fair? There were two classes, the haves, composed of communist party apparatchiks, and the have-nots, composed of the proletariat.

-          “The idolatry of money”

Who pays for the salaries of priests and the maintenance of churches around the world for its 1.5 billion Catholics? Do they work for free? Do they not “idolize” money in order to survive? The Holy See is quite flush with cash and wealthy beyond belief if you consider thousands of priceless works of art, marble statues, gold and silver icons, urns, crucifixes, chalices, and marble cathedrals around the world. Should they not follow their own direction and distribute all this vast wealth to the poor?

-          “The inequality that spawns violence”

Have liberals and other assorted followers not understood that violence and wars around the world were borne not only by real or perceived economic inequalities but by religion, land disputes, drug cartels, plundering, natural resources such as oil, gold, coal, diamonds, silver, and insatiable lust for power and control?

How exactly does the millennial Islamic violence and wars, driven by the quest to kill the “infidels” and to install a world-wide Caliphate, figure out into this half-baked inequality theory? Schools have successfully indoctrinated generations of students who do not know that the Crusades were responses to Arab aggression and Islamic occupation of Europe.

-          “Trickle-down economics” as a theory that “expresses a crude and na├»ve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

The Washington Post immediately included the papal criticism in its editorial and pointed out that Democrats and liberals have rejected the “trickle-down economics” theory and used the phrase derisively to define it.

“The phrase has often been used derisively to describe a popular version of conservative economic philosophy that argues that allowing the wealthy to run their businesses unencumbered by regulation or taxation bears economic benefits that lead to more jobs and income for the rest of society. Liberals and Democratic officials have rejected the theory, saying it is contradicted by economic evidence.”

As a matter of fact, trickle-down theories, which “assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” have been proven correct.

There is a good reason why the United States has done so well economically as opposed to centralized, socialist, and communist countries where indescribable poverty is rampant while the ruling, tyrannical elite live luxuriously. Even the poorest of the poor in the United States live far better lives than the rest of the world because free markets work despite heavy infusion of crony capitalism.

The Latin American Pope from Buenos Aires lamented that masses are still waiting for “social justice.” We have certainly spent trillions of dollars to no avail, in an effort to eradicate the poverty supposedly driven by social injustice. After decades of fighting the war on poverty and giving trillions around the globe and to our own population, we have made little progress because we have created a perennial welfare class that prefers to stay at home instead of being productively working.

The welfare class has been expanded with the addition of the multi-cultural illegal aliens brought in by the open borders non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who benefit financially from taking in as many illegals as possible, and the Muslim “refugees” resettled from around the world in places where their Sharia Laws clash violently with western civilization and are incompatible with our Constitution.

Never mind that economically speaking poverty is a relative term and there is a difference between wealth and income. But facts should not get in the way of the progressive agenda pandering to the economically-illiterate voting base and to the illegal immigrants invading U.S. and Europe who do not speak English and are often illiterate in their own native languages.

Somehow, in the twisted liberal logic, it is social justice to steal from the wealthy and the middle class.  These “rich” citizens have not earned their wealth through hard work but have stolen their ill-gotten gains from the poor and must therefore give it away to the downtrodden.

According to Gen. Pacepa, the Soviet communist-led idea of “social justice” was infiltrated successfully by the KGB into the Latin America’s Catholic Church as a religious movement called “liberation theology.” The goal was to “incite Latin America’s poor to rebel against the ‘institutionalized violence of poverty’ generated by the United States.” (Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, Disinformation, Washington, D. C., WND Books, Inc., 2013, chapter 15, p. 106)

What kind of “social justice” are the masses waiting for who are pining for socialism and communism? They are waiting to vote again and again for the same individuals and the same socialist or communist governments that brought them to the brink of poverty and kept them perennially downtrodden. They are waiting for socialist governments to give them welfare and free minimal health care through Castro clinics while they stay home and procreate more dependents. They are waiting for the redistribution of wealth from productive citizens. They are enslaved to their governments who decide their daily lives yet it is the United States’ fault.

Does “inequality spawn violence?” Is the Pope’s statement that “Authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” true? That is an interesting question to ponder in light of the violence spawned around Europe by the Islamist “refugees” that is creating chaos and destruction in many small towns in Germany, Croatia, Hungary, Austria, and Sweden.

The following is an excerpt from paragraph 253 of the papal document: …“We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

The Christian victims of jihad violence in Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria carried out daily by Muslims who use the Koran to explain the burning of churches and the killing of innocents certainly contradict his Holiness. And the hundreds of dead and grievously injured westerners in the Paris massacre are blatant and painful evidence to the Islamist intolerance.

Based on prior history, we know neither appeasement nor reverse psychology works; on the contrary, appeasement creates war and more violence.

Robert Spencer explained that “The Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, can, according to Catholic teaching, speak authoritatively about Catholic doctrine: he has the authority to delineate what is authentic Catholicism. This, however, is a statement about "authentic Islam." It would be interesting to know how he came to this conclusion, since the Pope of Rome has no counterpart within the Islamic world: there is no Muslim authority to which he can appeal in order to discover what ‘authentic Islam’ consists of, and many Muslim authorities would disagree with his statement that ‘authentic Islam’ is opposed to every form of violence."

Pope Pius XII saved many Jews from pogroms. He was the voice of the Catholic Church to protest against Hitler’s attack on the Jews, the Polish people, and on the prisoners in the concentration camps.

He even used Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer home, to shelter thousands of refugees.  In fact, “his personal bedroom was converted into a nursery and birthing area, and about forty babies were born there during the war.” The World Jewish Congress estimated that 860,000 Jews were saved by the Catholic Church and the work of Pope Pius XII. (Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, Disinformation, Washington, D.C., WND Books, Inc., 2013, p. 66, as quoted from the testimony of P. Guglielmo Hentrich before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal of Rome)

Would Pope Francis, with his vast and powerful influence, succeed in “nudging” the global population into the direction of global socialism with its “social justice,” complete redistribution of wealth, and blind submission to the climate change industry and to “Chrislam?”