Disease and Lies: The End of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

Yesterday, we received news from a law enforcement source that Hillary Clinton had a “medical episode” at a 9/11 commemoration ceremony. She was reported to have staggered and tripped on a curb as three other people helped her into her car. NBC reported that the NYPD was sent to retrieve her shoe. We also know from her doctor that she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. After more than an hour of silence, the Clinton’s campaign said that she felt “overheated.” She went from the event to Chelsea Clinton’s apartment and later emerged to tell reporters that she is “feeling great.” After Clinton left the ceremony, the reporters that were following her were prevented from leaving the media area for a period of time.

This has got to be the end of Hillary’s campaign. I cannot see how she can continue to run with any semblance of credibility. Clinton herself denied any concerns people may have about her health, saying that they were a part of a “wacky strategy” cooked up by rival Donald Trump as he embraced an “alternative reality.” The video of her going on Jimmy Kimmel’s show and opening an already opened pickle jar is sure to go down in infamy. All of the people in the media who participated in attacking those who questioned her health or played any part in covering it up are finished. This latest episode has exposed how partisan and corrupt the media is. This bias towards Hillary’s campaign has existed for years, with CNN morning anchor Chris Cuomo saying in 2014, “We’ll see. We couldn’t help her any more than we have. She’s got just a free ride, so far, from the media. We’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign. So, it better happen.” This was regards to the media urging her to announce her bid for the presidency. They were already set to support her even before she started her campaign. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC also said that “this whole fever dream has percolated up through so much of the right-wing media and onto Fox News.” Both of them, along with everyone else who tried to dismiss Clinton’s health issues as a conspiracy theory have egg on their faces.

The ramifications of this new information are truly astounding.

This election is perhaps the most high stakes election in American history. After this election, only one of the two parties in this country will remain standing. Should Hillary Clinton win, she will continue to allow illegal immigration to continue and perhaps even pass amnesty for them. The demographics of the nation will continue to shift to allow more reliable democrat voters to come in from Mexico and the Third World. This will sink the chances of Republicans ever winning a national election ever again. Should Donald Trump win, he will most likely build the wall and change the demographics in the other direction with deportations and a tightening of immigration, removing millions from the Democratic base. He is also breaking up the traditional Democratic coalition. His support amongst gay Americans has been bolstered due to his libertarian stance on the issue and his support for the gay community after the Orlando shooting. His recent speeches to the black community have also increased his support amongst black Americans. If he does win, he could destroy the Democratic base and sink their party’s election chances forever. Furthermore, he could appoint originalist Supreme Court justices and block any chance of liberal legislation from being upheld.

Hillary’s supporters in the media understand all of the implications of a Trump or Hillary victory. This is why they went all in for Clinton. This is why they told lies about her health and smeared Donald Trump with as many ridiculous allegations as they could muster. From this point, I think there are three possibilities of what will happen going forward: the Democrats look for a replacement for Clinton, Donald Trump is assassinated, or Clinton continues her campaign.

If there is a replacement for Hillary, I think it will be Joe Biden. If Trump was beating Hillary badly earlier in the race, Biden would have entered. Biden may very well have had a chance of beating Trump if he ran. He would come off as much more personable and kind to the American people than Trump would, even though Trump may have better policy prescriptions. However, it is too late to replace Clinton at this point. There are less than two months to go and adding a new candidate two weeks before the first presidential debate would be chaotic. I do not think the Democrats will take this course of action, but this crazy election cycle has proven that anything is possible.

With regards to Donald Trump, I would increase his security and maintain tight surveillance on him if I were a member of his campaign. With this news, I think the only way the Democrats may win the election is if Trump is assassinated. I am not insinuating that the Democrat party itself will organize the attempt. I believe that there will be an enormous amount of vitriol put out by the Democrats and their lackeys in the media to anger someone with a mental illness or a propensity for violence enough to assassinate Trump. The media has tried to agitate people to harm Trump as well as start riots as Trump rallies. We have already seen one case in which a British man tried to steal an police officer’s gun at a Trump rally in an attempt to assassinate the Republican candidate. He plead not guilty to the charges. I also fear that the people who are invested in the current system continuing, like lobbyists and special interests, may try to organize an assassination attempt themselves. I think that calls for Trump’s assassination will probably increase in the future. If there is a successful assassination attempt, it will most certainly lead to Hillary being elected president.

If Clinton continues her moribund campaign, she will have to face the wrath of Donald Trump during the debates as well as contend with questions about her health. Clinton and her supporters in the media have already been discredited on this issue. Since the “wacky theory” about her health has been proven true, I think the American people will question everything that comes out of her mouth. Clinton herself may not have the physical strength to continue the campaign. This will become obvious over the next two months. If she continues, Clinton will not only lose the election, but also take the Democrat party and the mainstream media down with her. Such a collapse will profoundly change the political landscape in America, and perhaps allow for the formation of a more honest and less corrupt system.

As things stand now, Trump clearly has the upper hand going into November. However, this election cycle has been anything but predictable.  One thing is for certain, the Democratic party has acted with clear disregard for the welfare of the country by nominating someone they did not vet properly. Vetting is not just to assess someone’s character, but also to assess their physical health. It is not an act of compassion for the country to continue to allow someone with significant health issues to run for such a high-stress position. Could you imagine her passing out or needing long naps when negotiating with hostile foreign leaders? What if she does not have the physical stamina to handle domestic affairs? These are questions that all Americans should ask themselves before they go out to vote. I believe the answers are already apparent.

The Syrian Migrant Crisis: A Demographic Disaster

We in the West are in the process of bankrolling a full-scale invasion that is poised to destroy Europe as we know it. The migrant crisis is perhaps the largest existential threat to Western Civilization since the fall of Rome.  Europe, shockingly, does not have the heart to say no to the migrants that are threatening to destroy their civilization. In fact, it is financially subsidizing their arrival by providing transportation and granting access to their generous welfare states. This is because Europe is ruled by its women and their emotionalism. This kindness has led to an existential threat that extends to all of European civilization because the EU allows free movement of the migrants to other European nations (except for England once they finalize their exit). It can only be stopped if we embrace traditional masculine values once again. It is the men in Europe who will have to say no to this invasion, since women by in large support the parties that are in favor of allowing migrants into their countries. Men are the ones who have to rediscover their protective instincts to save their civilization. Unfortunately, feminists have been busy destroying any semblance of masculinity in our culture for the last 50 years.

When I talk about feminism, I am talking about the modern feminism that has infected universities today. Men are no longer appreciated in our culture as a result of the feminist ideology. They are repeatedly told, unjustly, that they are patriarchs who promote a rape culture. Feminists’ favorite targets for this vitriol are white males. White men in particular are attacked for their white male privilege and are blamed for colonialism, sexism, racism and every other ill in the world. This criticism is particularly powerful in Europe, where men are having this message beaten into them ad nauseum. In addition to be attacked for their supposed privilege, men are also told that they are not necessary when it comes to raising a child. They are no longer viewed as the protectors of the family or even as providers. This is reflected in the dramatic increase in single motherhood in Western nations.

Modern feminism is largely a product of the rise in single motherhood that the West has seen over the last four decades. In the EU, single parents constitute 19% of all households with children in the EU. Single mothers make up 85% of them. Since single motherhood became so ubiquitous, many men in Europe have been raised by women. This is also due to the high divorce rates in the West. If they were not raised by a single woman, they grew up in a largely feminized culture that worships single mothers. They therefore do not act like men. Many of them were brought up by women who were a part of the 1968 movement and raised their sons to be like women. Danish journalist Iben Thranholm has highlighted this in one of op-eds. She says, “The average modern Western male has been feminized, with no knowledge or habit of manly virtues like courage, resolve, self-sacrifice, justice, temperance, self-reliance, self-discipline and honour. He has no sense of true expression of manliness.” Feminism despises these traditional male virtues and any expression of manliness. In fact, feminists call an expression of those virtues “toxic masculinity.” Sadly, the men in Europe do not have the will to say no and close the door to the migrants that are invading their countries. Instead, they along with their politicians are trying to be all inclusive and act like mothers to the migrants. The result is that the women in Europe are now left defenseless in the face of a dominant male culture brought in by the migrants.

The fallacy that feminists have fallen into is that by breeding masculinity out of their own culture, they will remove violence and danger from their societies. The downside to this is that when danger presents itself, there will be no masculine strength in the culture to fight back. This has proven to be right in light of the sexual assaults that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. The capacity to commit violence is inherent in men. However, it is violence committed on the part of decent men that stops evil men from doing harm. It is unfortunate that there were no men to protect those women from the gangs of migrants who had organized an effort to rape women that night.

Biologically, men exist to protect women. It is their responsibility to defend their civilization. In any species of animals on Earth, it is always the males that protect the tribe. Men have therefore evolved to perceive threats to a much better degree than women. In order to get men to perform their biological role, they need to be given an incentive to protect their civilization. This has traditionally been done by having them fight for their wives and children when they are threatened. Europe, for centuries, has followed this norm up until the last 50 years. Unfortunately, thanks to feminism, men no longer have anything left to defend. Western women have become so unappealing that the men have no incentive to protect them anymore. In Suzanne Venker’s article The War on Men, she says that “women aren’t women anymore.” Women have been raise to think that men are the enemy and have created a “women good/men bad dynamic” that has destroyed gender relations. The media has also contributed heavily to this, with movies, TV shows and even commercials portraying women as smart and competent while men are maligned and ridiculed. The results of this continued browbeating of men has manifested itself in marriage statistics. In the UK, marriage is now at its lowest level since 1895. There has been a 41% decline in the number of marriages from 1972 to 2011 in Great Britain. In the United States, the share of Americans who have never been married is the highest it has ever been. In 2012, one-in-five adults ages 25 and older (about 42 million people) had never been married,according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of census data. According to Dr. Helen Smith, the author of “Men on Strike,” “[Men] don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over. Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.” With women initiating 65-90% of divorces, men are reluctant to commit to them given the severe negative consequences they face in a divorce. The destruction of gender relations paired with a loss of masculinity has stopped men from fulfilling their role as protectors of society.

Germany is a good example where men are not standing up to female leadership that supports migrants entering their country. Angela Merkel, who in spite of all the recent terror attacks in Europe plans to continue to allow hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter Germany. “We will live up to our humanitarian responsibility,” she said. “The refugee crisis is a historic test for Europe, which I am convinced it will pass. Even if everything we do in Europe is interminably arduous.” Merkel seems oblivious to the threat the migrants pose and instead wants to nurture them like a mother. This may be because she does not have any children of her own and wants to be a mother to the migrants. Her words show that allowing the migrants is a purely emotional decision, which is feminine in nature. She sees this as a test of the German people’s kindness. Passing the test would involve providing for the migrants as if they were their own children. This good will is going to lead to the end of a nation if current trends continue.

According to an analysis by Professor Adorján F. Kovács from the Goethe-Universität at Frankfurt am Main, if the current rates of migration into Germany continue, German men in the 20- to 30-year-old age group will be a minority in their own country by 2020. There is no going back once this point is reached. This demographic shift is due to the large number of men between the ages of 20 and 35 who are entering the country. Many of them go on welfare and have children who are supported by the taxpayers. With family reunification, the muslim population is set to quadruple to 20 million by 2020. When you also take into account how the aging German population will eventually die off, you can only imagine what the demographics of the nation will look like in the future. Dr. Stefanie von Berg, a member of the Hamburg Parliament, said “Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be German majorities in our city.” She went on to tell the radical right wingers who oppose this that “this [change] is good.” This is yet another example of a female politician not acknowledging the threat that this demographic shift will have on her country. Germany as a nation may survive, but the native population that makes Germany, well, German will no longer be in control of their own country. Forever.

A simple question should be asked of people like Dr. Berg: Do you want to live in a Middle Eastern country? The reason this question should be asked is because people are not interchangeable. Germany is a creation of ethnic Germans and their culture. They have a tradition of Western civilization and freedom of religion. The migrants, on the other hand, come from countries where the vast majority of muslims are in favor of sharia law. A new survey showed that 72 percent of Muslims in France want to see Sharia as the main or only source of law in the country. That figure in the United Kingdom is at 69 percent. Sharia law is antithetical to Western ideas of freedom of religion and rights for women and homosexuals. If all the people in the Middle East and Germany switched geographical areas, you would have a much hotter Germany in the Middle East and a much more temperate version of the Middle East in Germany. The geography may change, but the values that people carry will not. If the answer to the question I asked earlier is no, why would you want Middle Easterners to become a majority in your nation? If you want to preserve individual liberty and equal rights for all people, you would fight to stop an antithetical culture from entering your country.

As Thranholm puts it, Europe is like a “battered wife.” In the face of the migrant crisis, the political leaders in Europe “acted like timid mother hens, not as strong men responsible for guarding their country from an invasion.” I do believe there is a solution to this problem, albeit a brutal one. That solution is a financial collapse. Eventually, the governments of Europe will end up running out of money trying to support their native population and take care of all of the migrants who are going on welfare. Given the the high percentages of migrants on welfare, they will probably cause mayhem when their benefits no longer exist. They have already demonstrated a propensity for violence through riots and sexual violence.

When the collapse happens, women in Europe will have to look to their men for resources and physical protection, especially if they have children. I think they will try to return to traditional values during that crisis. However, I fear they may be disappointed to see that their men are not willing to oblige. Men are very aware of the disadvantages that they have in entering a relationship and are tired of continuous verbal abuse they have received from feminists. They have woken up to how they are being treated as disposal ATM machines subject to scorn. Only look at marriage statistics and the popularity of the MGTOW movement to know this is true. I think that many men will decide not to protect or provide for women in that dangerous time. The resentment that men feel will manifest in their unwillingness to help the very women who abused them for so long. This will serve as an exceptionally grim lesson for all women. So grim, that it will be a lesson that is passed on for generations to come. Women will come understand that belittling and emasculating their men resulted in a disaster that left them bereft of protectors when danger reared its ugly head. Hopefully, women decide to embrace traditional female virtues before they end up trying to make a naked transaction for money and protection. I pray that it happens before Western Civilization is destroyed.

The Instinct for Self-Preservation: Why Gun Control Does Not Work

We have heard time and again from politicians and gun control advocates that America needs to follow the example of the rest of the developed world and impose strict gun control laws. Piers Morgan ran a crusade for gun control after the shooting at Sandy Hook, asking Ben Shapiro in an interview, “why don’t we try our way?” Morgan was referring to the total gun ban in the UK. Hollywood stars have also called for gun control, with Matt Damon saying that Americans “need to evolve further” in order to be open to implementing Australian style gun control. Put simply, Americans are too brutal and primitive to understand the wisdom of liberal gun control policies. In this post I am going to argue on behalf of the philistines and make the case as to why we support the 2nd amendment and are against gun control.

Let us begin with the language and interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The text reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Progressives read this and say that only people in a well-regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This is a complete misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment and must be fully refuted. Author J. Neil Schulman conducted an exercise with retired Professor of Journalism Roy Copperud to examine the language of the 2nd amendment and its meaning. Copperud taught journalism at USC for 17 years and is on the usage panel of the America Heritage Dictionary. Miriam-Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Schulman asked Copperud a series of questions on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I have part of their conversation below:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

This exchange clearly shows that Americans have a natural right to keep and bear arms that is not granted, but rather protected by the 2nd amendment. A well-regulated militia is one of the benefits of having an armed population. However, it is not the only reason for a population to be armed. The right to keep and bear arms belongs only to the people, not the militia. A militia, by definition, is made up of a group of people who bring their own guns. It cannot exist without an armed population. The reason the Founding Fathers adopted this amendment is because they had just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical king. They recognized that they could not have won the Revolutionary war without an armed population. Therefore, they decided to protect the people’s natural right to bear arms in the event that they face another tyranny in the future. They wanted the people to be able to start another revolution if necessary. Thomas Jefferson once said in a private letter, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” Only look at the unarmed masses who were made to submit to tyrants in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Mao’s China to see the wisdom of his words.

In addition to resisting government tyranny, we as human beings have a right to defend ourselves from those who try to hurt or kill us. I once had a conversation with a friend who, when asked if he would use a gun to defend himself, said that he would rather let the assailant kill him than use a gun to defend himself. I did not believe him. While his words may impress his friends at a cocktail party, I think if he were facing death he would want a person with a gun to save him. When someone makes that argument, what they are saying is that humans are the only creatures on Earth who do not have a right to defend themselves. If we see a lion chase after a gazelle and during the altercation the gazelle injures the lion with its horns, would we fault the gazelle? Doesn’t that gazelle have a right to defend itself? Why then would we deny the right of self-defense to humans? We have a right to kill someone who is trying to murder us in the same way that the gazelle has a right to hurt or even kill the lion that tries to eat it. Lions are predators that hunt the weakest in the herd of gazelles. Criminals are the same in that they target those who cannot defend themselves, namely the unarmed.

Having a gun is a strong deterrent against violent criminals. How many felons who are sitting prison would say that they want their potential victims to be alert and armed? None. It would be suicidal for them to attack someone who is armed. Gun control laws would only make it easier for them to commit crimes. When you pass a law that disarms the population, the only people who will follow it are law-abiding citizens. In other words, not the criminals. For example, mass shooters look for areas with unarmed potential victims so that they can kill as many people as they can. They therefore go to gun-free zones where they know that nobody will shoot back at them. If you look at mass public shootings from 1950 to July 10th 2016, 98.4% of them took place in gun-free zones. The recent shooting in Orlando also took place in a gun-free zone. The innocent people inside a gun-free zone during these shootings must wait until the police show up for someone to defend them. Until then, they can only pray that they are not killed. It is important to note that the police do not stop crime, they arrive after the crime is committed. They only draw the chalk outline of where your body was after you were murdered. Only you can stop an assailant when a crime is in progress with your own firearm. The residents of my hometown of Chicago are not allowed to have the gun they need to defend themselves. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but extremely high rates of gun crimes and murders. Between last Friday and early Thursday 99 people were shot in Chicago, 24 of them fatally. The laws that were instituted to stop those shootings are in fact allowing them to happen.

The fallacy of gun control is that it is an attempt to ban murders by banning guns. That is fundamentally impossible for two reasons. The first is that human beings have been murdering each other well before firearms existed. Violence and murder are a part of the human condition and cannot be stopped by laws. If someone has the motivation to kill someone, they will not care if they violate a gun law in the process of committing the murder. The second reason is that there is no way that the government could get rid of all of the guns in America. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are more than 300 million guns in America. That is almost one gun for every person. It is impossible to track down all of them. Even if gun control laws were instituted, criminals will still find a way to get their hands on guns. Even if we call the police when they commit a crime, we will still be relying on men with guns to defend us.

When liberals say they want gun control, it is really a misnomer. Their position is that guns should not be in the hands of private citizens, but exclusively in the hands of the government. Advocates for a total gun ban in reality want the government to use its guns to take guns away from citizens. The irony is that their proposal to ban guns requires the use of guns. Furthermore, they will make it much easier for a tyrant to subjugate us by taking away our means to resist. We will also be left defenseless in the face of violent criminals. As one of the philistines, I am not smart enough to see the wisdom of these policies. Until I can, I will remain ignorant and support the 2nd amendment and my right to defend myself with a firearm.

Hillary’s America: Movie Review

I begin this review of “Hillary’s America” with the words of Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine who said in his speech last night at the DNC, “If any one of you are looking for the party of Lincoln, we’ve got a home for you here in the Democratic Party.” I have never come closer to destroying my own television as I did when I heard him say those words. I can see why Dinesh D’Souza was inspired to make this film when such ignorance in prevalent in our country. D’Souza’s film evicerates the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. It reveals the untold history of the Democratic party and clearly shows that it is indeed not the party of Lincoln.

D’Souza produced and narrated the film. It does an excellent job of story-telling by using the visual. The actors in the film with excellent production value depict historical events very convincingly.

Among these events is how Andrew Jackson organized the massacres of Indians as well as supported slavery. Many others who have reviewed this film say it is full of conspiracy theories. This in fact is not a conspiracy, but is actually on public record. History also shows that it was the Democrats who supported slavery in both the North and the South. Democrats are also the ones who instituted Jim Crow laws and used the KKK as the terrorist arm of their party. All of the Democrat presidents from Andrew Jackson to Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson are responsible for this racism.

The film shows how the Democrat Party works like a street gang, by creating scams, pitching them unknowing victims, and then deny that they created the scam when they are caught. Does this sound familiar? It began with slavery and the Trail of Tears under Jackson. The Republicans, as the film points out, were the ones who fought the Civil War to end slavery and the Democrats’ racket of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president ever elected, and led the Union to victory in the Civil War. He also fought against the Democrats to pass the 13th amendment through congress. This is why Senator Kaine earned my ire last night. The Republican party is the party of Lincoln and has remained that way ever since the end of the Civil War. D’Souza painstakingly created a list of Democrats, KKK members, and racists from 1860 to 2000 and shows that less than one percent of them switched from the Democrat to the Republican party. He also points out that as the South became less racist and more prosperous, it became more Republican.

I am especially glad that the movie went over the history of black Republican Ida B. Wells. She was a reporter who heroically fought to end lynchings. She called for blacks to arm themselves to defend themselves from the Democrat KKK. It turns out that the early attempts at gun control by the Democrats were racist in intent. Those laws were meant to make it easier for the KKK to lynch blacks without the risk of being shot.

Her story perfectly follows another theme of the film, which is how the Democrats tried to suppress blacks after the Civil War and it was the Republicans who consistently opposed them. The Democrats simply found a new scam after the Civil War, by holding blacks in bondage through the creation of plantations in the inner cities.

A part of this scam was Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project, which was intended to exterminate the black population in America through abortion. She recruited black church ministers to spread her message while hiding her malicious intent. She also gave speeches in front of the KKK and strategically placed her clinics in black neighborhoods. Sanger’s brainchild, Planned Parenthood, is held in very high regard by Democrats, with Hillary Clinton once saying that she is “really in awe” of Sanger. D’Souza also uses the analogy of street gangs to demonstrate how Hillary Clinton is just another part of the Democratic racket that has existed for almost 200 years.

The movie has a lengthy segment about Saul Alinsky, the author of  “Rules for Radicals” and the man who made community organizing popular amongst radicals and agitators. He came into contact with Frank Nitti and worked for some time with the Al Capone mob. He had no qualms about stealing money from a cafeteria chain on the grounds that his right to eat took priority over the cafeteria owner’s right to make money. There was also one scene where, when looking over account books, Alinsky questions why the mob would waste money on hiring a hitman from outside Chicago when they could kill someone with one of their own men. How sensitive! It turns out that a local hitman may have been too tender to kill someone he knows. This is the man that is the ideological mentor for both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with Clinton writing her senior thesis on Alinsky.

It should be no surprise that in “Rule for Radicals” Alinsky asks his followers to forego moral principles in service of achieving a larger goal. Obama and Clinton have followed this commandment very well and have proven themselves to be star-pupils. The film uses Obamacare as the ultimate example of Alinsky tactics at work. It shows footage of Obama’s classic lie, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” It serves as an example of how Alinsky’s tactics are used to fool the American people into surrendering more freedom and money to the government. D’Souza fears that Hillary will use the same tactics Alinsky learned from the mob as president. Only this time, she will seek to have all of America dependent on the Democrats. I share the same concern.

I believe that voters in this country should make their decisions based on facts. I think this movie does present an untold history of the Democratic party that people who have been indoctrinated by the education system in this country do not know. This movie is therefore a must-see for those who seek to learn more about Hillary Clinton and her party. It would certainly be an eye-opener to those who believe that the Democrat Party is the party of Lincoln.

I give the movie 4 stars.



Why I Support Donald Trump: An Immigrant’s Case

As the Republican National Convention drew to a close I thought it would be appropriate to lay out the case for why I support Donald Trump for president. Being an immigrant from India, many people are surprised that I would be willing to support the candidate who is perceived as anti-immigration. I support him because I believe that his policies are what will preserve the America that my family came to enjoy, as I mentioned in my first post. The issues that are most important to me are immigration, the economy, and national security. I will go through all of these issues in detail in this post and explain how Trump’s policies provide the best solutions. I will also explain how the media has misled the American people on what Trump actually believes.

Let us begin with the most controversial of Trump’s proposals: immigration reform. He began his campaign by talking about the troubles the United States has with its border with Mexico. He was condemned as a racist for saying that Mexicans are “rapists.” He in fact did not say that. He was talking specifically about certain illegal immigrants from Mexico, not all Mexicans in general. Also, it is worth noting that when we are talking about illegal immigrants, we are talking about a group that is composed entirely of criminals, given that they entered the country illegally. Trump went on to say, “some I assume… are good people.” Is that not a kind thing to say about a group of criminals? The Mexican government has actually published pamphlets giving its citizens advice on how to enter the United States illegally. It speaks about what clothes to wear while fording a river, namely the Rio Grande, and how not to get dehydrated when walking through a desert. It also informs them of their rights when they are detained. Trump was right when he said that Mexico was “sending” its people to America.

He has also said in the debates and on his official website, that he wants to stop immigration to preserve the rule of law. On the immigration reform page of his website it says, “a nation without laws is not a nation.” He is correct. My family followed the immigration laws perfectly when we entered the country and when we got our citizenship. We had to wait for over a decade for the latter. I think it is entirely unfair to people like my parents and I who followed the law to grant illegal immigrants amnesty. The reason the Democrats fight so hard for amnesty is because they know that illegal immigrants favor them 54% to 19% over Republicans. The Washington Post article also says,”among Hispanic legal permanent residents (legal status but not citizens), Democrats led 67-13 percent. And among Hispanics who immigrated to the United States and became citizens, they led 69-17.” Amnesty would grant citizenship to millions more hispanic illegal immigrants. I will not stand for the constitutional structure that created this great nation being torn asunder for the sake of the Democrats’ miserable careers.

Trump’s proposal to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it is actually very viable and also a sensible step. The cost to the Mexican government is projected to be between $5-10 billion. Mexican nationals send approximately $24 billion in remittances back to Mexico to help their families. Trump proposes that aliens may not wire money out of the United States without first verifying their lawful presence in the United States. If Mexico does not make the one time payment of $5-10 billion for the wall, the regulation will go into effect. It would be a good deal for Mexico to make the one-time payment to ensure that the remittances keep entering their country.

Welfare usage by both legal and illegal immigrants is also a major concern for me given that America has a national debt of over $19 trillion. The Center for Immigration Studies did a study that shows that 73% of households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico consume welfare. Households from the Caribbean are at 51% and those from Africa use welfare at 48%. Only 26% of households from Europe consume welfare. The group with the lowest welfare consumption is the one I belong to, South Asians, at 17%. The reason I mention these numbers is because we need to start having an immigration policy that benefits America. We do not need to be an alms house for all of the poor immigrants of the world. We need to be bringing people into this country who will not be a burden for the taxpayer and will add value to our nation’s economy. Immigrants from Europe and South Asia consume welfare at the lowest rates. Furthermore, immigrants from India have the highest levels of educational attainment out of any ethnic group. This is perhaps the reason why Indians as a group have the highest median income in America at $101,591.

In addition to productivity, immigrants should also assimilate to the American culture and adopt the values of our nation. In the early 1900s, assimilation in America came out of economic necessity. There was no welfare state to provide from immigrants at that time. Therefore, they had to learn English, interact with Americans and adopt their values in order to be employed or run a business. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the immigrants to America before 1965 were mostly from Europe. Integration was much easier since they shared western traditions and were largely Christian. However, assimilation is not taking place to the same degree today due to both the presence of the welfare state and the influx of immigrants from the 3rd world. When a welfare state is in place, immigrants will not have to assimilate out of economic necessity because the government is there to provide for them. In many cases they do not have to learn English and simply stay within their own communities, isolating themselves from the rest of the country. They therefore keep their 3rd world values and turn the areas they go to into versions of their home countries. For example, the age of consent in Mexico is 12. In many states in Mexico, a rapist can avoid punishment if he marries his victim. Approximately 80% of the women from Central America who cross the border illegally are raped along the way according to the Huffington Post. This is the culture that is being imported into the United States without assimilation as a result of our porous border.

About 62% of illegal immigrants use welfare. This is a huge burden on the American taxpayer. It is also very unjust given that they should not be in the country in the first place. Trump has proposed that we end welfare abuse by immigrants by having applicants for entry to the United States certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs. By having this requirement, we will be bringing the immigrants who are productive and able to provide for themselves when they enter the United States. They will assimilate in the same way that my family did as a result of their economic value.

With regards to the economy, I think that Trump’s tax plan will help boost economic growth and stop the growth of the national debt. He has proposed that we simplify our tax code to four brackets (0%, 10%, 20% and 25%), instead of the seven that we have now. Married couples that earn less than $50,000 will have a rate of 0%. The 25% rate only applies for single filers at $150,001 and up and for married filers at $300,001 and up. By lowering the tax rate, it will make people save more money and also boost consumer spending.

With regards to the corporate tax, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate of the 34 countries in the OECD at 39.1%. It is important to remember that when we tax a corporation, we are really taxing people. It is not the entity on paper that pays the tax, it is the people who work for the corporation that pay it. Corporations have to pay their employees less or increase their prices in order to compensate. To stay competitive, many companies have left America. Trump therefore plans to cut the corporate tax down to 15% to incentivize corporations to come to America. This will result in an increase in GDP and an increase in job creation. It will also help bring back about $2.5 trillion that corporations are keeping overseas back to America to drive investment.

I believe that a revival of the U.S. economy is the best way that we can balance the budget in addition to spending cuts. Trump’s plan seems to be best poised to energize our economy with strategic tax cuts.

National security has become a very high priority for me, given the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, Nice and now Munich. I think that Islam is an existential threat to the West and it is tearing Europe apart. Trump has proposed that we put a moratorium on Muslim immigration on account of our inability to vet immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa. An official from the Department of Homeland Security has said that there is no way to vet the 10,000 Syrian refugees that have recently entered America. Europe faces the same problem, which has manifested itself in a huge spike in terrorism and sexual violence. The muslims in Europe also hold many values that are antithetical to Western values.

For example, Europe and North America recognize the separation of church and state. Islam does not make the distinction between the two. In fact, they are one and the same under Shariah law. There is no freedom to disbelieve in Islam like there is in Christianity. The punishment for apostates in Islam is death. Large numbers of muslims in Europe are also against people criticizing their religion publicly. Terrorists have killed those who have done so, like in the Charlie Hebdo attack. All of these positions are antithetical to secular western democracies. I think a temporary ban on muslim immigration would be appropriate to prevent these values from being imported into the United States. In America, 51% of muslims are in favor of Shariah law. The Pew research data also shows that 25% of muslims in America think violence against Americans is justified as part of the global jihad. Trump has said that he would examine the mosques in America to find the radicals that are peddling extremism, which I think is important since the muslims in America have not helped law enforcement at all in this area. He has also emphasized the need to promote and preserve Western values in the face of this threat, which I think is absolutely essential if we are to protect ourselves.

Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech outlined his strategy for providing for the national security of the United States. He mentioned that the United States paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of defending Europe in NATO. Only 4 of 28 other member countries besides America are spending the required 2% of GDP on defense. Given how high the United States national debt is, we would do well to have our allies pay more for their defense. Trump said that if they refuse, “the United States must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.” I admire his assertion of American interests in this alliance. I also think it would make the world safer if European nations did more to defend themselves and abstain from involvement in the Middle East.

Trump also spoke about how the Middle East is in turmoil as a result of U.S. interventions over the last 15 years. Trump said at the RNC, “after fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before. This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.” As a nation we tried to turn countries in the Middle East into Western democracies, when they had no experience or desire to become a Western democracy. We destroyed the institutions they had and ISIS filled the void.

I am glad that Trump has derided the Obama-Clinton foreign policy and has rejected the idea of nation building. I think we should move in the new direction that he outlined with rebuilding our military, which has been depleted under Obama, and not intervening in foreign countries to the extent that we have. I am especially glad that he acknowledges that we are at war with radical Islam. We cannot hope to fight back against this evil unless we accept that we are at war. The Europeans do not understand this yet, but I hope they do before it is too late. Perhaps Trump can lead the way on this as president, just like he has led his business organization.

I have outlined here the three most important issues to me and how Donald Trump’s policies will help solve these problems. I will talk about Trump himself to conclude.

Donald Trump has been hugely successful in a wide variety of fields in his illustrious career. He is an international real estate mogul, and more importantly the only one that people can recognize. His name is synonymous with excellence. He is also a best-selling author, with The Art of the Deal being one the best selling business books of all time. He also produced The Apprentice, an enormously popular reality show that others have tried to emulate, but were not able to do so. Trump’s presence on the show was the deciding factor. His success can be attributed not only to his executive experience but to how media savvy he is. Trump has been in the public eye for more than three decades and knows how to handle them better than anyone in the business. The success of his presidential campaign is a testament to that.

I cannot think of anyone who is more qualified in terms of executive experience and knowledge of the media than Donald Trump. Coupled with his policy prescriptions, he is a truly outstanding candidate. I hope that this rather long post will help spread useful information to voters during this election and will also help explain why an immigrant would support Donald Trump for president.





A Crisis of Civilization: Saving the West

I have started this blog in light of the horrible tragedy in Nice, which I believe is yet another attack in the war the West is in with Islam. My condolences go out the families of those who were killed or injured in the attack. My mind will forever hold the image of that poor little girl who is in a body bag next to her doll. If that image does not inspire us to fight to defend our civilization, I don’t know what will.

As of now, I believe that we in the West are in a struggle for the preservation of our civilization. Our ancestors have fought and died to hand us the freedoms and we enjoy today. It is not our right to give away the centuries of progress the West has made. Unfortunately, the West has abandoned the principles that have made it great and has instead followed the delusions of socialism and multiculturalism.

We have witnessed the government both here in America and in Europe spend their populations into oblivion, creating massive national debts. Moreover, they continue borrow using the productivity of their children as collateral. America, as of now, has a national debt of about $19.3 trillion dollars. The debt to GDP ratio is 104.17%. According to Forbes.com, federal unfunded liabilities exceed $127 trillion. In spite of this, our government continues deficit spending at alarming rates, with a deficit of $439 billion in the 2015 fiscal year.

Immigration has also been a central issue in both American and European politics.

In America, we are struggling with an influx of millions of illegal immigrants in our border with Mexico. We are told that we are a nation of immigrants, which is true to the degree to which the original settlers who created the nation were Dutch and English. However, the nature of immigrants to America up until 1965 were white Europeans, with Judeo-Christian values and heritage. This is not to say that there were not regional differences, but they all assimilated within one or two generations. The post 1965 immigrants to the United States were mostly from Mexico and other third world countries. The immigration policy of the United States for the last 50 years has been used to dilute down the American culture and import people from the third world who will be a reliable voting block for the Democrat party. The character of our nation is going to change from a Western nation based on Judeo-Christian values to that of a third world country in the process.

Europe is going through its own immigration crisis from the Middle East. The civil war in Syria in addition to the turmoil in North Africa has led to a massive migration of millions of muslims across the Mediterranean. Angela Merkel made perhaps the biggest policy mistake in European history by allowing millions of muslim migrants to enter Germany and give them free range to move through the EU. The surge in terrorism since the beginning of the crisis has been unprecedented. Gangs of muslim men are raping German women, as we saw in the New Year’s Eve attacks that occurred in Cologne and other German cities. They are also putting more strain on German taxpayers by consuming welfare. Furthermore, ISIS has taken advantage of the migration to get their members into Europe. We have seen evidence of this in the form of massive terrorist attacks, particularly in France, which has seen a terrorist attack every other month for the past two years.

The combination of massive national debts and third world immigration is going to lead to collapse of the West both financially and culturally. In America, internal divisions between the races also threaten to tear apart the fabric of our nation. The recent murder of 5 police officers by a Black Lives Matter sympathizer is perhaps the most grim reminder of this danger. I intend to fight back against these threats to our civilization with my intellect and hopefully do my part in finding a peaceful solution to these problems. The posts on this blog will focus on politics and the existential threats that the West faces.

As an immigrant to the United States, I want to preserve the country that my family came to enjoy. I also want to advance the cause of human liberty through my efforts. I hope that I can enlighten others with the truth so that we may preserve our civilization and pass on the gift of liberty to our posterity.