MRC points out, once again, that one of feminism’s leading lights is a complete and utter fraud. Just like the faux eco-warriors who drop their green facade when confronted with the reality of open borders environmental degradation, the contemporary feminist movement couldn’t care less about upholding the rights of women and girls. For more on the connection between anti-Isreal Jewish Marxists and their sharia-loving Islamist comrades, check out this post from The Silent Majority No More.

When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. 

Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

-Sun Tzu

Those barriers are designed to prevent a repeat of the massacre that occurred this week at a Christmas market in Berlin. Thankfully, the perpetrator behind that particular atrocity has been put down by a brave Italian police officer. Unfortunately, thanks to Chancellor Merkel, there are now thousands of lovely creatures from the Maghreb who would like to repeat this event throughout Europe. As Tommy Robinson has pointed out, short of a nuclear or radiological device, open borders are the most powerful weapon we can hand to our jihadist foes. In that sense, Angela Merkel and the rulers of Europe are all accomplices to mass murder.

What’s more, they are making it impossible for Europeans without a death wish to preserve their lives in a non-violent manner. Not only must they be sacrificed to the Cult of Diversity, but they must recite its incantations, otherwise they risk being thrown into a dungeon for engaging in wrong think. There is increasingly little to distinguish the legal and societal norms of third world Islamic backwaters and Western capitals, which is why the people in prison are not those who march through the streets of London braying for the imposition of a caliphate, but those who question the ability of foreign Muslims to successfully comport themselves with Western civilization. It’s why we need to invert reality and pretend that the problem isn’t the population replacement taking place in Europe, but the xenophobic right wingers who represent the true threat to European harmony.

The truth is that the extreme right is not extreme at all, but a necessary corrective to the post-war consensus which is based on unreality. The extreme right  would not exist if the sensible mandarins who controlled Europe for the past 6 decades had not made such a hash of things. They’ve not only ruined the nations they’ve inherited, accomplishing something Adolf Hitler himself could not achieve, but are now in the process of stamping out any criticism-however muted-of their ethno-masochistic, suicidal immigration policies. Instead of building walls, deporting those who should have never been invited to settle in Europe to begin with, and acknowledging that multiculturalism and Muslim repopulation of Europe has been a catastrophic mistake, European leaders are busy finding ways to suppress healthy, constructive dissent.

Like Pat Buchanan, I believe that Europeans will fight back eventually. The tragedy is that the not-so benevolent despots who rule over them have ensured that this battle will be bloodier and more protracted than anything they could have ever imagined. They’ve  made what could have been a peaceful repatriation of foreign settlers-or invaders, if you prefer that term-almost impossible, and caused their societies to be torn asunder in order to add ballast to a profoundly stupid, destructive ideology. One which was bound to fail, and will leave millions of victims in its wake.

It seems like the Truck of Peace has struck yet again, adding to the nearly 21,000 lives extinguished by this most quiescent, moderate of religions. The ISIS-inspired murderer is on the loose, naturally, although the BBC will be relieved to know that the offending lorry has been taken into custody. As the Alternative for Democracy has stated, these dead can be laid at the feet of Angela Merkel, a woman responsible for more European deaths than the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri combined.  She celebrates the cultural enrichment brought by migrants-presumably including the over 100,000 crimes they’ve committed-even as German police buckle under the relentless pressure of Arab-Muslim street gangs.

She has the gall to lament the impact this Muslim-committed atrocity might have on refugees, i.e. potential jihadists, even as Berlin is still soaked in the blood of those who’ve been killed by one of her wayward children. Yet this stupidity hasn’t prevented the same host of global opinion-makers from tut-tutting the potential blowback from the German public. It’s infuriating to those of us who’ve been watching the War on Christmas unfold across Europe and North America over the past 2 decades. We’re being asked to sacrifice our lives-and the lives of our children, grandchildren, sisters, and brothers-upon the alter of multiculturalism and our culture’s demented fealty to political correctness.

Merkel needs to pay the ultimate political price for her actions, which actually are treasonous, i.e. a profound betrayal of her country. She is her nation’s Cromwell-times a hundred-and is accomplishing something even Adolf Hitler couldn’t, i.e. the destruction of Germany. Forgive me if it seems like I’m invoking Godwin’s Law with that comparison, but there’s no more appropriate analogy at this point. We are dealing with a woman who is consciously leading her nation along the path of destruction and eagerly embracing the extermination of her people.

Merkel is finished. She must be, because if she is not, then Germany certainly is. There are limits to ethno-masochism, even in Europe. Merkelism is collective suicide, and it’s time that Germans stood up and said they’re not willing to forfeit their lives on behalf of wretched specimens like Angela Merkel.

Update: David Goldman adds his 2 cents. 

A few observations about last night’s presidential debate, which you can view in its entirety here, as well as the post-debate spin which followed.

As I pointed out in an essay published earlier this year-before we knew who the parties would nominate-the defining characteristic of Hillary Clinton is her tenacity. Leaving aside her arguably criminal behavior in office, she has virtually nothing to recommend her as a politician, despite the fact that her  lifelong goal-at least since reaching adulthood-has been the acquisition, retention, and exercise of political power. She is the modern-day incarnation of Richard Nixon, stripped of any charisma or popular appeal. However, she has managed to surmount these inherent limitations to the point where she is on the threshold of accomplishing her sole mission in life. Namely, becoming the next President of the United States.

Donald Trump’s closing remarks were effective because they were grounded in an ineluctable truth, i.e. Hillary Clinton does not quit. Regardless of how unfavorably the public might perceive her, or what humiliation she has to endure in order to achieve her goal, she refuses to abandon her quest. While some, including those who view power-seeking and the arbitrary exercise of authority over other individuals, might consider this a repellent quality in a human being, it’s her quintessential feature as a public figure. This was a crucial acknowledgement by Trump as the debate reached its conclusion.

Conversely, the habitual dishonesty of the controlled media was on full display throughout the night. Although not as obnoxiously tendentious as the previous moderator, Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper demonstrated why reporters are even less respected and trusted than the 2 presidential candidates they cover on a daily basis. It’s not simply the fact that journalists have enlisted en masse in the campaign to have one of them elected, but it is the air of sanctimony they assume while denying reality. Generally speaking, I’m not a fan of Trump’s personal attacks on members of the media, even those who deserve to be skewered.

They reinforce a public image-which is partially grounded in reality-that he can’t run a disciplined campaign, and they move the field of battle from the issues to a matter of personalities-most of whom the public has heretofore been unaware. While attacking the ruling class-including the fourth estate-is an essential ingredient to Trump’s campaign, focusing upon personal disputes with specific reporters actually assists Hillary Clinton, who has tried to discuss anything and everything but substantive policies, because in that realm she is at a decisive disadvantage. That said, repeatedly exposing the malfeasance of the purportedly objective moderators throughout the evening was absolutely necessary, as both-but especially Raddatz-couldn’t suppress their sneering contempt for evenhandedness, despite repeatedly patting themselves on the back for how impartially they were performing their roles.

If Donald Trump often shoots himself in the foot by going off-script, some of his worst messengers are the people who he’s enlisted as unofficial spokesmen. Rudy Giuliani being a primary example of this phenomenon. His post-debate interview with Chris Matthews, where he discussed the recent disclosure of a recording involving a vulgar conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush, demonstrated yet again why Rudy is a bad emissary to the public. Although a masterful local politician, Giuliani has proven himself to be a consistent blunderer on the national stage, which is probably why MSNBC chose him as one of its pro-Trump guests last night.

Finally, I noticed a Johnson-Weld sign being waved outside of the university where this debate was held. Even though I have very little admiration for Gary Johnson the politician-who often resembles one of the more unhinged, illogical social justice warriors-and even less for Bill Weld, I still believe they-along with Jill Stein and Darrell Castle-should have been allowed to participate in these presidential debates, which are administrated by a cartel run by the 2 major political parties in this country. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the beliefs of these minor party candidates, America is entitled to hear them expressed in a public forum, not treated as if these beliefs do not exist. If anything comes from this absurdist presidential election, perhaps it will be a growing acknowledgement that it’s not the media’s job to decide which ideas are licit and which are forbidden.

New York City can often feel like an alien environment for those who prize rationality and individualism over collectivist groupthink and social justice campaigns designed to distract you from the fact that public section unions and non-profits exercise a stranglehold over the decision-making process. Our mayor is a Cold War Era relic who fetishizes policies that  the Vietnamese and Chinese Communists abandoned decades ago, while there are members of the New York City Council who are not able to communicate in the English language.

That’s why the upcoming We Are Breitbart Meetup in midtown Manhattan is a cause for celebration. To converse with individuals who are not completely and utterly delusional, and who have an actual understanding of how the free market works-rather than a set of regurgitated Paul Krugman talking points-is a rare opportunity for most New Yorkers. I invite you all to come to this week’s event, the details of which can be found below.

Where: Emmett O’ Lunney’s, 210 West 50th St. 

When: Wednesday, April 13, 2016, 6-8 PM 

Limited to the first 200 people 

Nota Bene: Congratulations to Bosch Fawstin, who submitted the winning entry.  I think it personifies the spirit of defiance that characterizes those who stood with Geert Wilders in Texas yesterday in defense of freedom of thought and expression. You can view an enlarged version of the same drawing here. You can read the speech delivered by Wilders in its entirety here. 

I can’t say that I ever expected a close friend to be the target-one of many, as it appears-of an assassination plot. Then again, I never expected to live in a country that had porous borders, and which allowed scores of criminals and terrorists to traverse them at will AFTER losing nearly 3,000 of its citizens in an unprecedented terrorist assault. Thankfully, the only deaths to come about as a result of the latest expression of peace were those of the jihadists themselves. We can only hope that the courageous police officer injured in the line of duty will completely and fully recover from his wounds in the days ahead. 

Since it’s 2 am EST I’ll spare you my analysis of the predictably craven, pandering, pathetic mass of cells nominally in charge of Garland, Texas-a huge diversity enthusiast, incidentally-and commentary upon the steel-framed memory hole on 8th Avenue, and simply urge you to visit Pamela Geller’s website for yourself. You’ll not only get the latest, firsthand information about the thwarted massacre in Texas, but also a morally and historically correct diagnosis of the plague we’re facing.

It is there, where they burn books, that they eventually burn people. 

-Heinrich Heine 

Can someone remind me again why it’s wrong to compare them to Nazis?

Update: The passenger from Lagos who died on an Arik Air flight to New York recently suffered from cardiac arrest, and is not believed to have contracted Ebola, according to the CDC. 

The public face of the Ebola epidemic, now that Thomas Eric Duncan has expired, is unquestionably Thomas Frieden, the current head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the media regularly tout his role in stemming a tuberculosis outbreak in India-and addressing a similar proliferation of the disease in New York City-there is little discussion of his actions as this city’s Health Commissioner, particularly the more controversial aspects of his tenure.

I only raise this because of the perplexing behavior and words of Dr. Frieden in recent days, which, if anything, have only increased Americans’ suspicions that the government doesn’t know what it is doing. Perhaps the most bizarre statement to be issued by him thus far is the assertion that preventing foreign nationals from the three African nations decimated by the Ebola crisis from entering the United States would actually cause the virus to spread. Over a hundred people from West Africa land in this country every day, and as the Daily Signal points out, the State Department is still processing visas from non-American nationals in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, to the consternation of the current Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This, despite the fact that those with Ebola presumably continue to board flights seeking medical treatment in the United States.

Only after a sustained public outcry has this administration even considered a possible travel ban, which might or might not be enacted. Keep in mind, this is a federal government that exhausts its seemingly illimitable resources trying to prevent the importation of perilous pumpkin seeds, deadly Steinways, and contraband queso. Yet people who might transmit one of the deadliest infectious diseases known to mankind are still being cavalierly waived through Customs.

It’s hard to believe that this laissez-faire attitude is born of any genuine conviction that freedom of travel and commerce is paramount, considering the actions described above. It’s even harder to believe that Mr. Frieden is concerned about the civil liberties-however broadly that phrase might be applied to non-Americans trying to enter this country illegally-of those from Ebola-infected nations. As Health Commissioner for New York City, he exhibited no such qualms about encroaching upon the privacy and circumscribing the rights of ordinary New Yorkers, so long as these crusades served the greater good. From an involuntary diabetes registry from which patients could not opt out, to an effort which did away with written consent for H.I.V. tests, to his tireless campaigns to extirpate the scourges of tobacco smoke and trans fats-heedless of any concern that these crusades might impinge upon people’s freedoms-there was no chapter of Thomas Frieden’s career as a public health czar in this city which could be even charitably characterized as civil liberties-friendly.

Why then is he exhibiting such concern for the theoretical travel freedom of those in West Africa who might infect thousands of unsuspecting Americans with a lethal disease? The only conclusion reasonable people can draw-as Ilana Mercer already has-is that our government’s suicidal devotion to open borders has occluded its vision of what poses a legitimate public health risk. What other rational explanation is there for a policy that consciously endangers the health and lives of American citizens while offering no countervailing public health or economic benefits? We’ve reached the point where radio and television personalities call for a prohibition upon the importation of bushmeat-which is already illegal-but don’t question the wisdom of an immigration policy which encourages the importation of people for whom bushmeat is a regional delicacy.

Like every other response of the White House to the growing threat posed by the Ebola outbreak, from the decision to appoint a Democratic fixer as the new Ebola czar-a choice in keeping with this administration’s subservience to political donors and party apparatchiks-the reluctance to confront the danger posed by migration from those nations devastated by Ebola is a purely political reaction. It’s bad enough that pre-20th century plagues which had been eradicated in the United States have returned-and expanded because of immigration from third world nations-but to invite individuals into this country who might be infected with a disease whose mortality rate ranges between sixty and eighty percent is the very definition of insanity.

If the recent Ebola crisis, and our government’s tragicomic response to it, teaches us anything, it is that the demise of this country will not come at the hands of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Russia, Iran, or any of our well-publicized enemies. It will come from a slavish obeisance to political correctness.

As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, there were many reasons why Thomas Eric Duncan should never have been allowed to enter the United States. It turns out that the simple, prophylactic measures which ensure the fiscal and cultural vibrancy of this country-or which used to do so, at any rate-also have immense public health benefits, e.g. preventing the diffusion of an incredibly fatal pandemic. The fact that lax customs and border procedures have endangered American citizens should come as no surprise to those of us who have been following the epidemiological nightmare which has emerged from this administration’s embrace of the thousands of unaccompanied minors streaming into our country from Central America, via Mexico. 

However, I’d like to briefly explore the way in which this case illustrates the fundamental divide that lies at the heart of immigration to the West from the third world. Namely, the desires of those who are mired in poverty-and in this case, who are forced to rely upon parlous healthcare distribution networks-versus the needs of those who are living in developed nations such as the United States and United Kingdom. Leaving aside the dubious ethicality of  traveling abroad with the knowledge that you’ve contracted the ebola virus, seeking treatment at first-class medical facilities in the United States made perfect sense to Mr. Duncan as a matter of self-interest and survival, especially when he contemplated the alternative.

This is why the  refrain by open borders fetishists that those of us who want reasonable immigration policies are “anti-immigrant” and “xenophobic” misses the point altogether, which I’m sure is intentional on their part. No one is blaming immigrants for wanting to escape the disastrous conditions in which they find themselves-and which many of us would attempt to flee if found in similar circumstances. The blame does not accrue to them, but to the political, corporate, and journalistic class which has enabled scores of such individuals to find safe haven in the west at our expense.

It’s not immigrants who are at fault for the problems you’ve seen catalogued in these pages for the past four years, but the architects of public policies which have allowed these problems to manifest in the United States. The ultimate outcome of Mr. Duncan’s trip to the United States has yet to be determined, but I think we can safely assume that the shortsighted and politically opportunistic policies which allowed him to travel freely around this country will not revisited any time soon, despite their potentially catastrophic consequences for the rest of us.

This is what happens when the institutions of the state are permitted to run amok. If the fact that the ATF hasn’t fired a single person responsible for the Fast and Furious debacle, or its subsequent coverup, surprises you, then you probably haven’t been paying attention. The only people censured in this administration are those brave enough to  expose its malfeasance.  I’m sure that the campaign to demonize critics of the White House’s systematic executive overreach, i.e. abuse of power, will continue unabated, but the fact that some congressmen are at least attempting to reassert the power of Congress is worthy of note.

Kudos to Congressman Issa!

As the White House contemplates an expansion of its constitutionally dubious administrative amnesty, it’s worth taking a look at how the treason lobby’s Republican accomplices are dealing with the public’s repudiation of their most cherished legislative priority, i.e. opening the spigot to an endless stream of cheap, imported labor. A particularly revealing exchange happened a week or so ago on the Laura Ingraham Show during an interview with faux conservative Rep. Renee Ellmers, a woman who ran for Congress under the banner of the Tea Party.

Instead of listening to the concerns expressed by her constituents on the subject of immigration reform, i.e. amnesty,  however, she has decided to throw in her lot with the one of the most lavishly-funded, dense Capitol Hill lobbying networks. Which might explain why Tamar Jacoby and her allies are rallying around the embattled congresswoman even as conservative North Carolinians seek viable alternatives to the complacent incumbent.

While the Republican Party leadership doesn’t get it, Republican voters understand the necessity of preventing the implementation of another amnesty for which the GOP will (rightly) be held culpable. An amnesty that will make the election of candidates like Renee Ellmers an impossibility in the near future, something that open borders Republicans like her don’t seem to grasp.