Never Give Up! A Patriotic American Attitude

Could the Sleeping Giant Be Awakening?

7/24/2015 - David Limbaugh Townhall.com

The professional hand-wringers are freaking out over Donald Trump's straight talk while displaying abysmal indifference to the deserved targets of Trump's charges. The United States is incinerating, but all they can think about is Trump's heated rhetoric.

Trump is resonating because, as a presidential candidate, he is giving public voice to many of the concerns that have Americans beside themselves. Some commentators have called attention to these issues for years, but it's different when a candidate does it, especially a Republican candidate.

Democratic candidates have no fear of making controversial statements or even of taking extreme positions, because the liberal media agree with them and will avoid putting them in a bad light. But Republicans know that the media will exploit any opportunity to vilify them.

Republicans also feel pressure from the GOP establishment to pull their punches -- not to say anything that would make them look too conservative, too extreme, too uncaring, too out of step with the popular culture. "Don't sound judgmental. Moderate your words. Be respectful toward President Obama. And above all, don't sound like one of those crazies."

Then Donald Trump comes along and breaks all the rules. He is not beholden to anyone for funding, and he's not a string puppet for any feckless political consultants.

The media are going bonkers, but it's not because Trump sometimes uses insulting terms. Their real beef with him is that he is saying things on policy that they don't want to hear.

The GOP political class is even more beside itself, doing everything it can to diminish him and cast him as an outsider. "Does he not realize what damage he is doing to our brand?" these insiders fret. The dirty little irony is that they are the ones who have damaged the Republican brand.

Say what you will about Democrats, but at least they stand for something and they act like the liberals they are. Republicans often talk a good game -- good enough, in fact, to win the congressional elections in a landslide in 2010 and 2014 -- but they routinely fail to deliver.

They whine that even with a majority in both houses, they can't do anything to stop Obama and that if they were to try anything too bold, they'd be viewed as extreme and lose the next election.

Neither of those excuses is entirely true, and the increasingly frustrated not-much-longer-silent majority is done with their squishiness. Their job is not to get along with Obama. It is not to pass bipartisan legislation that always plays into Obama's hands. It is not to pass cutesy bills, such as the Corker bill, that pretend to impede Obama's disastrous agenda but actually facilitate it.

People are horrified and furious that Obama is destroying America at an ever-accelerating pace and that our cultural rot proceeds apace. They are tired of hearing excuses and empty promises from Republicans.

Trump is having none of it, and he is calling out Obama and the Republicans who are trying to tone him down -- and it's abundantly refreshing. Meanwhile, the media continue to make Trump's statements the issue instead of Obama's daily -- and I mean daily -- outrages.

Are they focusing on Obama's side deals with Iran to freeze the United States out of inspections and his bypassing of the Corker bill's requirements that he report those to Congress? How about his alleged deal to defend Iran's nuke sites against attack, even from Israel? His new rule that immigrants applying for legal citizenship no longer have to swear they will take up arms to defend the United States should they have any kind of religious objection to doing so?

No matter how much it may appear otherwise to us now, this country is not going under without a fight, and the silent majority is not going to tolerate cowardice from Republicans much longer. That Trump is doing so well is not an indication that there are a bunch of crazies on the right. It's proof that people are at their wits' end -- and they're not going to take it anymore. If GOP honchos were to try to bar Trump from the debates, there would be major hell to pay. Surely, they won't be that foolish.

Many of us Reagan conservatives have told you for years that the key to Republican victory is not for GOP candidates to emulate liberals or appeal to some mysterious group of "independents." It is to clearly and authentically articulate Reagan conservatism -- without apology.

Notably, it is not just Donald Trump who is speaking out. Sen. Ted Cruz is fearlessly and brilliantly articulating mainstream conservatism, and he's pulling no punches. The same is true of some of the other candidates. Cruz and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina are both putting on clinics on how to deal with media interviews -- refusing to cede the narrative and hitting back hard against Democratic extremism.

This may very well be a turning point in our history and in the conservative movement. Obama has become more arrogant, defiant and excessive with each successive political victory and every Republican abdication. But he might just have finally done enough to awaken the majority of Americans who still love the country for which he is demonstrating unbridled contempt.

Let's not give up on America just yet. The sleeping giant may have emerged from its coma. We still have people fighting for us and for America. They are fighting for things just a tad bit more important than worrying about whether this or that GOP candidate is sounding rude or extreme or how much leg Caitlyn Jenner is showing with her newest dress.

Illegal Immigration Insanity - Continues

Judge Forcing Obama to Release Even More Illegals

Conservative Daily August 22, 2015 Fellow Conservative,

It isn’t often that you find someone more liberal than President Obama on the topic of illegal immigration, but Judge Dolly Gee might take the cake.

Late yesterday, she released a decision ordering the Obama administration to release illegal alien families detained after ILLEGALLY crossing the border.

Do you see what this is? It is the death of our country. Donald Trump is right: without a border, we can’t have a country. This Judge has ruled that it is illegal for the Obama administration to detain captured illegal aliens in secure facilities. No, that’s not a joke.

Believe it or not, the Obama administration is actually fighting the judge on this. Administration lawyers claim taking detention off the table will lead to an unprecedented increase in illegal border crossings. The judge said that is nothing but “fear mongering.”

I don’t care who these illegal aliens are. They have no business being here. When it comes to illegal immigrants, there are way too many and there shouldn’t be any. Period.

This judge’s radical ruling will make border patrol detention facilities nothing but a revolving door. Border Patrol is now powerless to detain captured illegal alien families. They have to process them and just let them go, hoping that they’ll show up for their deportation hearing.

That almost never happens. More than 90% of released illegal aliens NEVER show up to their deportation hearing. They just disappear into American society and, as Donald Trump points out, they give birth 300,000 children every year. Illegal alien pregnancies account for 7.5% of all births in the United States. This is absolutely unsustainable.

These are called “anchor babies.” I don’t care if that’s not politically correct. If an illegal alien gives birth on US soil, many people believe that child is automatically a US citizen. When that child reaches 21-years old, the illegal alien parent(s) are eligible for amnesty.

This anchor baby practice is based on a flawed interpretation of the 14^th Amendment. Even when the amendment was being debated, its authors explicitly said that birthright citizenship would not apply to illegal aliens. But a century and a half of liberal interpretation has allowed illegal aliens to completely invade this country. There are 300,000 illegal alien births every year and this judge just opened the door for thousands more. All in an attempt to fill Democrat voter rolls. It’s just shameful.

Are you ready to put a stop to this?

Liberty is the Answer

For Immigration Answers, Look to Liberty

8/24/2015 - Ron Paul Townhall.com

What should be done with the estimated 15 million people living in the United States without the legal right to be here? It seems most politicians and many Americans come down on one or the other extreme.

Many Republicans, including Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, have the idea that they can round up 15 million people and ship them back to wherever they came from. Many Democrats, on the other hand, would grant them blanket amnesty, give them citizenship, and make sure as many as possible are fully signed up to the welfare ranks.

Has anyone thought for a moment about how difficult, expensive, disruptive and dangerous to our civil liberties it would be to turn over every stone in this country to search for someone who might not be here legally? How many billions of dollars would it cost? The government would likely introduce a national identification card in effort to determine who should be here and who should not. 

The cards would no doubt be equipped with biometric data to transmit to the government information about law-abiding American citizens that they have no right knowing.

But on the other hand, how many billions of dollars per year does it cost to provide federal, state, and local welfare and other benefits to individuals who are not legally in the United States?

The situation seems impossible and it is true there are no easy answers. I have suggested in my book "Liberty Defined" that some status short of citizenship might be conferred on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps a "green card" with a notation indicating that the person is not eligible for welfare and not permitted to vote in the United States. I don't think there is any doubt that many who come to this country illegally simply want to work and will take jobs that Americans refuse to take.

The fact is, in a more libertarian society citizenship itself would not be all that highly prized. Immigration could be controlled to a degree using property rights instead of building walls and issuing a national ID card. One very important "right" currently granted by U.S. citizenship is the "right" to all the free stuff from the government. A more libertarian society would likely have a more restrictive immigration policy because entry into the U.S. would not be accompanied by guarantees of free things and most property would be owned privately.

Similarly, the issue of birthright citizenship would be much less difficult if acquiring American citizenship by the fact of being born on U.S. soil did not grant the child the ability to take advantage of the welfare state. Remove the welfare magnet and you will greatly reduce the incentive to give birth here in order to gain citizenship for the baby.

Congress has within its power the authority to clarify the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by making it clear that it does not grant citizenship by birthright. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is very clear: Congress has the power, "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States."

This power has been used in the past to clarify birthright citizenship, including for the children of diplomats born on U.S. soil and foreign prisoners who may give birth while in jail. There is no reason Congress cannot provide further clarification of what the 14th Amendment means when it refers to "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

It is our weak economy, caused to a great degree by the Federal Reserve system and the business cycles it constantly creates, that makes the immigration situation worse for us. Neither extreme position is correct because neither takes this into consideration. A move toward more liberty would be the first step toward a normal immigration policy. 

Too Little - Too Late - For Too Many

Who Will Stop The Sanctuary Madness?

8/6/2015 - Ken Blackwell Townhall.com

Republican candidates for president have fittingly come to Ohio to debate, among other things, immigration policy. In late July, the United States House and Senate heard testimonies from families of Americans murdered by illegal aliens who had been shielded from deportation by sanctuary policies. The consequences of these policies hit home in Ohio just a few days later when Margaret Kostelnik was shot and killed in her home by an illegal alien who later confessed to her murder in addition to the attempted rape of a 14-year old girl, the shooting of another woman (who thankfully survived) in front of her two young children, and for firing at police officers, all on the same day.

With sadness, but not surprise, Ohio soon learned that the perpetrator had been picked up by Sheriff deputies just a couple of weeks before, but was let go in spite of his being in the country illegally.

Unlike some other high-profile sanctuary murders, Kostelnik's killer was put back on the streets not by a rogue Sheriff's department, but by the very federal agencies whose jobs used to include removing illegal aliens. The federal agents who ordered him released were acting on directives from the White House and Department of Homeland Security that order agents to ignore immigration violations unless the perpetrator meets the Obama administration's priorities.

And what are those priorities? As has been reported in the New York Times and Washington Post, the priority of the Obama administration is to allow as many illegal aliens to stay in the country as possible. Obama himself threatened "consequences" for any agent who didn't follow the new directives.

As one DHS insider put it, before Obama, "everyone in the country unlawfully was fair game." But now the admin is going through the detainee population looking for illegal aliens to release into the U.S. with the intention of letting them stay permanently. Primarily, the administration's policies are aimed at protecting and rewarding citizens of other nations who want to work illegally in the U.S., many of whom commit additional crimes like identity theft to do so. That in itself is an abrogation of the president's duty to American workers and families. But the policies do more than carve out exceptions to the law for economic migrants seeking illegal employment. They inevitably shield violent criminals from the law as well.

These sanctuary murders are not isolated cases. Their victims are not anecdotes. According to the head of Immigration and Customs enforcement, the criminal aliens released by the Obama administration over the past four years went on to kill someone at a rate of once every 12 days. And that doesn't count the crimes committed by illegal aliens like Kostelnik's murderer, who are routinely released because they don't meet the administration's priorities.

I would like to hear the Republican candidates state unequivocally that the priority in immigration policy and enforcement should be the citizens of the United States.

Open-borders advocates who support the idea of a sanctuary nation argue that illegal aliens are less prone to violence than legal immigrants or citizens. That obfuscates the point: these are lives that should not have been lost and would not have been lost if federal immigration agencies were allowed to do their jobs.

DHS now says they will deport Kostelnik's killer after he has served his sentence. Too little too late for too many.

Immigration - Global Lawlessness To The Nth Degree!

Immigration -- Issue of the Century

8/18/2015 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

"Trump's immigration proposals are as dangerous as they are stunning," railed amnesty activist Frank Sharry.

"Trump ... promises to rescind protections for Dreamers and deport them. He wants to redefine the constitutional definition of U.S. citizenship as codified by the 14th Amendment. He plans to impose a moratorium on legal immigration."

While Sharry is a bit hysterical, he is not entirely wrong.

For the six-page policy paper, to secure America's border and send back aliens here illegally, released by Trump last weekend, is the toughest, most comprehensive, stunning immigration proposal of the election cycle.

The Trump folks were aided by people around Sen. Jeff Sessions who says Trump's plan "reestablishes the principle that America's immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens."

The issue is joined, the battle lines are drawn, and the GOP will debate and may decide which way America shall go. And the basic issues -- how to secure our borders, whether to repatriate the millions here illegally, whether to declare a moratorium on immigration into the USA -- are part of a greater question.

Will the West endure, or disappear by the century's end as another lost civilization? Mass immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West.

A wild exaggeration? Consider.

Monday's Washington Post had a front-page story on an "escalating rash of violent attacks against refugees," in Germany, including arson attacks on refugee centers and physical assaults.

Burled in the story was an astonishing statistic. Germany, which took in 174,000 asylum seekers last year, is on schedule to take in 500,000 this year. Yet Germany is smaller than Montana.

How long can a geographically limited and crowded German nation, already experiencing ugly racial conflict, take in half a million Third World people every year without tearing itself apart, and changing the character of the nation forever?

Do we think the riots and racial wars will stop if more come?

And these refugees, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not going to stop coming to Europe. For they are being driven across the Med by wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, by the horrific conditions in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan, by the Islamist terrorism of the Mideast and the abject poverty of the sub-Sahara.

According to the U.N., Africa had 1.1 billion people by 2013, will double that to 2.4 billion by 2050, and double that to 4.2 billion by 2100.

How many of these billions dream of coming to Europe? When and why will they stop coming? How many can Europe absorb without going bankrupt and changing the continent forever?

Does Europe have the toughness to seal its borders and send back the intruders? Or is Europe so morally paralyzed it has become what Jean Raspail mocked in "The Camp of the Saints"?

The blazing issue in Britain and France is the thousands of Arab and African asylum seekers clustered about Calais to traverse the Eurotunnel to Dover. The Brits are on fire. Millions want out of the EU. They want to remain who they are.

Each week we read of boats sinking in the Med with hundreds of refugees drowning. Yet many, many more make it to the Greek and Italian islands, and thence north to Germany and Scandinavia and the welfare states of Western Europe. Once they step onto EU soil, they are in.

This unending invasion has called into existence anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties in almost every country in Europe. Few of these parties existed at the turn of the century. How does this all end?

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality," wrote T. S. Eliot.

Is the West still blind to reality, to the inevitable future that awaits if the West does not secure its frontiers and close its borders to mass immigration?

Peoples of European descent, everywhere they live, have birth rates below replacement levels. Yet, most live in the world's most desirable neighborhoods.

The great and growing populations of mankind are in the Third World. Countless millions are determined to come to the West, legally if they can, illegally if they must. And the more who succeed, the more who come.

Either Western nations take tough measures to secure their borders, or the Western nations will be swamped. The character of their countries will be altered forever, and smaller countries will become unrecognizable. And as this is happening, ethnic and racial clashes will become more common, as they are now becoming across Europe.

"The principle that America's immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens" is paramount, said Sen. Sessions.

Sessions is right. America is our home. We decide who comes in and who does not, how large the American family becomes, whom we adopt and whence they come. It has become the issue of 2016.

Indeed, it is the issue of the 21st century.

We Are Our Own Worse Enemy

'Immigrant': The New N-Word

8/12/2015 - Ann Coulter Townhall.com

Americans have got to drop their weird verbal tic of inserting "illegal" into any discussion of immigration.

After I pointed out on "Fox News" that the dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Gov. Chris Christie over spying on "Americans" was entirely a problem of immigration, "Fox Insiders" put these two sentences together:

"[Coulter] explained that halting illegal immigration would help solve other key issues such as the economy and national security. 'Don't make terrorists citizens through immigration, and we'll have a lot less of a national security problem,' Coulter said, pointing to the attacks at the Boston Marathon and in Chattanooga." (Emphasis added.)

Were those guys illegals? Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev swim across the Rio Grande to get to Boston? Did Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez hire coyotes to sneak him across the border so he could shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga?

No. Our government invited them in.

Some of our other beloved legal immigrants include:

-- Anwar al-Awlaki, the man whose death in Afghanistan provoked Rand Paul to stage a 13-hour filibuster in opposition to the use of drones against -- I quote -- "American citizens";

-- the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan;

-- the attempted Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad;

-- all those Somali immigrants living in Minnesota, bloc-voting for Al Franken before flying to Syria to fight with ISIS;

-- Sirhan Sirhan;

-- the 9/11 hijackers;

-- the Pakistani terrorist Daood Sayed Gilani, American anchor baby, responsible for four days of bombings in Mumbai in 2008;

-- the New York subway bomb plotter, Najibullah Zazi;

-- Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who shot a U.S. Army captain in 2010;

--- the "local man" arrested this week for trying to organize an army of ISIS fighters in New York and New Jersey, Nader Saadeh -- anchor baby "American citizen."

ALL LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN! Why were any of them in this country? What are we getting out of this?

It's not just the Fox website. Wherever I go on this book tour, I find people injecting "illegal" into the discussion, as if they're being polite, like saying "Jewish" instead of "Jew." But all these "homegrown," "American" terrorists aren't Americans, at all -- except as a result of recent government policy.

This week, Sens. Jeff Sessions and Ted Cruz have sent a letter to the Obama administration asking how many "non-citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens and natural-born U.S. citizens have been involved in terrorist-related activity since 1993." National Review's headline? "Cruz, Sessions: How Many 'Homegrown' Terrorists Were Illegal Immigrants?" (The headline was later changed, after complaints.)

It's a national neurosis! People simply refuse to see what's right in front of their faces.

Admittedly, the media hide the evidence, but did anyone read this 2010 New York Times headline, "2 New Jersey Men in Terrorism Case Go Before a Judge," and think, Oh my gosh! What is America coming to?

The "New Jersey men" were Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. Alessa, born to legal immigrants from Jordan and the Palestinian territories, told his Boy Scout troop, "Osama bin Laden is a hero in my family" and expressed a desire to mutilate homosexuals and subordinate women. (He was the first member of his troop to earn a merit badge in female circumcision.)

Alessa's co-conspirator, Almonte, is a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic. (Raising suspicions, he doesn't play baseball.) He could be heard on a wiretap saying that he wanted U.S. troops to come home "in caskets."

He also attended an anti-Israel rally with a large sign reading "DEATH TO ALL JUICE," which he posted to his Facebook page -- a social media platform created by a juice. (Naturalization officials must have high-fived one another when they got that guy.)

CNN was so relieved to have a "homegrown" terrorist who wasn't a Muslim, the network abandoned its own rule book and identified Almonte as the child of "Latino immigrants" -- amid fulsome descriptions of him as "an all-American kid" and an "all-American altar boy."

So the good news is: Not all "American" terrorists are Muslim immigrants. Some are Latino immigrants -- who typically become radicalized after coming into contact with one of our prized Muslim immigrants.

In addition to "DEATH TO ALL JUICE" Almonte, there was Bryant Neal Vinas, whose parents were legal immigrants from Argentina and Peru. Vinas fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan and, in 2008, plotted to bomb New York's Penn Station.

At least he's not one of those icky illegal immigrants!

I have a word limit, so I've limited today's discussion of legal immigrants to the terrorists. But I note that the big news this week is about an illegal immigrant, Victor Aureliano Martinez Ramirez, who raped, then murdered 64-year old Marilyn Pharis with a hammer at her home in Santa Maria, California. Has anyone noticed that Martinez Ramirez's co-conspirator in the rape-torture-murder was legal immigrant Jose Fernando Villagomez?

It's getting to the point where we're going to need cattle prods and shock collars to break people of the neurotic compulsion to slip "ILLEGAL" in front of the word "immigrant." The reality of legal immigration cannot make a dent in the elite's make-believe world, where legal immigrants are only hot Swedish models, Rupert Murdoch and Sergey Brin.

Instead of Christie and Paul sparring over government policy on search warrants in a post-9/11 world, could we reconsider the government policy of admitting legal immigrants who need to be spied on?

SCOTUS - Might Makes Right!

So Much for the Constitution – Is America Now a Rudderless Ship?

7/1/2015 - Jerry Newcombe

In 1819, Jefferson spoke out against judicial activism, saying: "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Recently we have seen judicial activism on steroids at the Supreme Court. That is especially true in their hubris-laden decision to set aside “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and say that same-sex marriage is now the law of the land in all 50 states. Period.

We-a-slim-majority-of-the-Court have spoken. And there it is. To me the big issue boils down to authority. By what authority did a majority do this?

As Chief Justice Roberts himself said, you can celebrate this decision if you want to, but the bottom line is it had nothing to do with the Constitution.

If the Constitution means whatever the justices want it to say, then the nation is like a great ship set adrift without a rudder---or worse, with a rudder forcing us to go on its inexorable way toward a great waterfall.

Those who applaud such in imposition of power may not be so enthusiastic if another arbitrary authority arises which doesn’t share their values. ISIS marked the Supreme Court’s decision over the weekend by throwing off alleged homosexuals off tall buildings in Syria, as crowds below cheered on. I’m sure those poor victims received no due process.

The United States of America has been a great and noble experiment. How can sinful man govern sinful man in a way that allows freedom---including for those who don’t share the same values? Power had to be balanced and parceled out, lest we have a monarchy or an oligarchy, a rule by the few.

This was the genius of the American system. It gave us great freedoms. But now, we’re in a scenario essentially of “might makes right.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented in this case, noting: “The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation….By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority [of this Court] facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas.”

He added, “If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.”

Scalia noted in his dissent, “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In short, what matters now is who’s got the power---in this case one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy. In a different context, satirist Tom Lehrer sang: “Might makes right, until they see the light…” That is such a dangerous place to be, for the annals of history are filled with the bloody trail of abuses of power, even among so-called enlightened people.

One of the greatest books summarizing the history of the 20^th century---the bloodiest century on record because of the anti-God views of so many leaders, i.e., Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.---is Modern Times by the excellent British historian Paul Johnson.

He noted that at the end of the 19^th century, many intellectuals were claiming that God was dead. This created an incredible vacuum.

Johnson writes, “The history of modern times is in great part the history of how that vacuum had been filled….In place of religious belief, there would be secular ideology…above all, the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by any religious sanctions whatever…The end of the old order, with an unguided world adrift in a relativistic universe, was a summons to such gangster-statesmen to emerge.”

Anthony Kennedy’s decision on Friday, written in the voice of a philosopher-king, rather than a judge, divorced marriage from the norms of history, world civilization, and God.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissenting opinion, "Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority's decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect." Thus, they have turned the Constitution on its head, granting a right not found there that will trump rights explicitly spelled out there.

In 1821, Jefferson warned, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in . . . the federal judiciary.”

I can only take comfort in the fact, as Alveda King reminds us, that God will have the final word, Said the Apostle Paul, “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

Global Culture Conflict Taking Its Toll

Europe's Real Existential Crisis

7/3/2015 - Pat Buchanan

However the Greek crisis ends, whether with Athens leaving the eurozone, or submitting and accepting austerity at the dictates of its creditors, the European Union appears headed for an existential crisis.

Greece borrowed and spent beyond its means, like New York City in the '70s, and Detroit, Illinois, and Puerto Rico today. But the crisis of Europe is about more than budget deficits and bad debts.

All the momentum toward One Europe -- the dream of the generation of Jean Monnet that drove Europeans toward ever-deeper union -- seems to have dissipated. The momentum is now toward separation and dissolution.

The Greek crisis exposed one fault line in the union, the desire of the Mediterranean nations to build welfare states that their economies could not sustain without huge borrowing abroad.

Paying these debts is going to force ever-greater austerity on those nations. Eventually, their peoples may choose, as debtors do, to walk away, rather than pay.

But not only economics imperils the EU. There is the call of tribe and nation that has often before torn the Old Continent apart.

The U.K. Independence Party and National Front in France, both of which want out of the EU, have millions of supporters, and emulators across Europe. These parties appeal to national histories, heroes and cultures, while acolytes of the EU and eurozone sound like editorials in the Financial Times. Who would fix bayonets for Brussels and the European Commission?

NATO is a shell of what it once was. It is today, a virtual fraternity of freeloaders. With exceptions, like the Poles, Estonians and Turks, European nations have all slashed their defense budgets to beneath two percent of GDP. Angela Merkel is described as the Iron Chancellor for facing down Greece's Alexis Tsipras, but she seems more like Willy Brandt when talking to Vladimir Putin.

A century ago, after Lloyd George and Clemenceau did their map work in Paris, one could walk from Baghdad to Cairo, turn south, and walk 5,000 miles to Cape Town, without leaving British territory.

Today, Britain and France, the imperial powers of Sykes-Picot, would prefer to have the Americans police the Middle East. Our allies have terrible memories of European wars that produced no comparable gains, and none of them, understandably, wants to fight again.

They have another concern in common. Their continent is being invaded. From the failed states of the sub-Sahara to the war-torn nations of the Mahgreb and Middle East, the Third World is coming to occupy the Mother Continent.

On July 2, The New York Times had several stories on the Greek crisis, but several also on Europe's immigration crisis.

Some 8,000 trucks were stranded at Calais and Dover, the opposite ends of the Channel Tunnel, as migrants piled onto the vehicles crossing into England. The threatened drivers could do nothing to prevent it.

"Migrants are streaming into Europe from North Africa and the turbulent Middle East," said the Times, "The European Union has been trying to force countries to share the burden. But the bloc has so far failed to agree on how to do so. In Britain, the issue is particularly charged, and euroskeptic politicians are pushing for the country to leave the union, with immigration a chief complaint."

Another headline on the same page read, "Russia Sees an Especially Potent Threat in Its Converts to Islam." The story related the fears of a jihadist uprising within her borders as ethnic Russians convert to militant Islam and join the 15-20 million Muslims inside Russia already, and the two million in Moscow alone.

Russia and Europe have more in common than they realize -- the same existential threat.

Another story in the Times, "Europe to Fight Islamic Radicals on Social Media," reported on jihadist recruitment inside Europe.

A leader of Europol, said the Times, "has estimated that up to 5,000 people from Western Europe have traveled to Syria and Iraq, many to join the Islamic State. British officials believe that at least half of the 500 or so Britons who have done so have already returned home and represent potential threats..."

Europe has survived depression and the worst wars in modern history, though her wounds are terrible and lasting. But can Europe, with native-born populations that are aging, shrinking, and dying, survive a never-ending invasion of Third World peoples that Europe has never assimilated before? Especially when millions of these people profess a militant faith that has historically been alien and hostile to Europe?

The birth dearth in Europe has endured for 40 years. There is no end in sight to the Third World invasion, as the lands of the Middle East and sub-Sahara descend ever more deeply into tribal, sectarian and civil war, and send new millions of refugees streaming toward the Mediterranean coast.

Who or what will stop them? As Gen. Petraeus said on that road to Baghdad: "Tell me how this ends."