The Status of Immigration: Poll Show Americans Have Had Enough!

According to the article, "Americans Sour on Immigration", written by Casey Harper of The Center Square (formerly known as Watchdog.Org), a conservative oriented website owned by the Franklin News Foundation, a recent Gallup poll shows voter support for maintaining the current immigration level has dropped.

The poll indicates that the approval level has declined from 34% to just 28%. It hadn't been this low since 2007 when it dropped even lower, to 23% (the highest it has been was 41% in 2018). Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. Last year (2022), the United States took in just over one million legal immigrants.

The majority came from India, Mexico, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. 25,000 of new arrivals were refugees. Over the preceding 18 months, around 150,000 illegal immigrants crossed into the U.S. according to information released by United States Customs and Border Protection.  The Department of Homeland Security also stated that in the second quarter of 2022, roughly 221,000 "non citizens" were given lawful permanent status to remain in the U.S..

Many immigrants come from Mexico, however, increasing percentages are arriving from Central and South America; countries like Columbia, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. In fact, the majority of immigrants illegally trying to cross our southern border are coming from Venezuela, replacing Mexico as the origin of most illegal immigrants.

The primary reason most often cited is the collapse of the Venezuelan economy following the death of President Hugo Chavez in 2013 and the imposition of strict restrictions by the U.S. government (an example of reaping the whirlwind?).

The most cited reason is economic and political hardship (as an aside, economic hardship is not generally accepted as legitimate reason to claim refugee status).   In addition, individuals arriving from Caribbean (such as El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, also known as the "Northern Triangle") have also been on the rise.

They too cite the economy (in part due to horrific damage cause by increasingly severe hurricanes) as the main reason along with the usual political corruption. These areas underdeveloped economically and are dependent on tourism to keep their economies afloat, but thanks to COVID-19, tourism dropped to a fraction of what it used to be due to travel restrictions  and cancellations by cruise ship companies.

Most of those coming here illegally are settling in Florida, Texas, Arizona (places already with large Hispanic populations) as well as North Carolina. There are also large migratory populations to be found in more rural states like Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.

It's also worth noting that there has also been a substantial increase in individuals from Asian countries coming to America illegally as well with India and China being the top two, followed by Korea and Vietnam.

At present, around 14.6% of the U.S. population are foreign born, which is the highest percentage in 112 years. That translates to about 48 million individuals (legal and illegal) as of September 2022 and a 2.9 million increase since the beginning of the Biden Administration according to the Center for Immigration Studies.  Some 900,000 have gone on to become American citizens according to a report from Pew Research from 2022.

Along with the 48 million immigrants, there were 17.2 million "children" (those under 18 years of age) with a foreign born parent. Therefore, including the immigrant and their children, that account for  approximately one in five U.S. residents.

It's worth noting, particularly given the prevalence of "help wanted" signs appearing in nearly every business window or on every telephone poll, that of the 48 million immigrants in the U.S. roughly half---27.4 million---were employed. This represents two million prior to the COVID-19 crisis. It's worth noting too that most are considered to be hardworking.

In fact, several surveys have shown that most illegal immigrants don't want to become U.S. citizens. They don't want to "blend in" with other Americans, including learning English. They are here solely for the money. Nothing more. Many send a portion back home to support their family.

 In some cases, entire communities are at least partly supported by money sent home by their sons and daughters working in America. If they get caught, so what? They get a free physical paid for by U.S. taxpayers, a good meal, and free trip back home (along with any money earned while here in the States).  Once home many repeat the process all over again a few days or weeks later.

So, what's the takeaway? What are we to make of this?  Well, America has always been the number one "go to" destination for immigrants---legal or illegal. America was, after all, founded by and for immigrants.

No other nation in history (except perhaps Ancient Rome) has had the influx of migrants as we have had. It can truly be said that nearly every country, race, ethnicity, and religion can be found somewhere in this country. I suspect that every language and nearly every dialect can be found here too.

However, America was intended to be a "melting pot". People who came here did so with the intent of becoming "American". To become a U.S. citizen was the goal of nearly everyone who stepped off the boat. Most did their best to learn the language (with varying degrees of success). It was part of what it meant to be American. They did their upmost to adapt to the prevailing customs, laws, and traditions as best as they could.

They tried  to leave behind centuries of hatreds, feuds, and other prejudices. Some changed their names and others their religions. Many married not just out of their social class, but often our their own nationality. This was an opportunity to start completely anew. 

While certain traditions were kept by these new migrants, the objective was to become part of the giant American "melting pot", where our collective backgrounds were added together to create this new being called "American". However, sometime around the 1960's this began to change.

Instead of trying to blend in and part of this nation, we encouraged immigrants to keep their own languages, cultures, traditions, and values. It would be us who would adapt; who would accommodate you.  In time, we began to accept their refusal to blend in and to excuse away their laws and customs even when it came in conflict with our own in the name of "multiculturalism".

Immigrants now can refuse to have their children taught in English, opting instead to have a taxpayer tutor teach them in their former tongue. We provide instructions in a multitude of languages. Even phone recordings are in different languages, which wouldn't be so bad I suppose except we are suppose to "push one" to hear English. As an aside, I won't do it. If you briefly wait, it will continue on in English.  

While we should try to be accommodating, we shouldn't remove the incentive to learn the language spoken here by making it easy to avoid it. Otherwise, we're simply enabling the separation of our nation into ethnic enclaves. As I've said many times over the years, a common language is the thread which binds the fabric of a nation together. 

Once everyone typically wore generally similar types of clothing. Not anymore! Now it's common to see individuals wear traditional native garb. The problem is that some areas try to impose "modest" dress customs (usually based on religious traditions) on others comes into their neighborhoods as if these are foreign enclaves instead of the U.S.

This is a big deal in Europe which even has its own "morality police" which can arrest and even fine so-called "offenders" (usually women) This topic has recently popped up in New York and other U.S. cities. The same goes for food or drinks where pork products or liquor are served or sold in certain neighborhoods.

This has already happened in Europe too where native restaurants are penalized for offering pork or alcohol on their menus. Sure, you can still get these "off menu", but you have to consume them out of sight of other customers less you risk "offending" them. I'll be damned. Give me a BLT and glass of cold beer and I'll enjoy them both wherever I bloody well please!

I don't begrudge anyone's heritage or beliefs, but they should understand that they are the foreigner. It is therefore up to them to adapt to the traditions, values, customs, and language of the nation which took them in and provided them with an opportunity to start over...not the other way around. If they don't like it, they are free to catch the next flight out. That's one of the pluses about America. You can leave at anytime.

We don't need a poll to tell us that Americans are tired of dealing with this mess just as we're tired of weak willed political stooges ignoring us, but the validation that we're not alone doesn't hurt. I also suspect that many immigrants are just as tired of others, in their self-righteous arrogance, making life harder on them as well. We often see signs at rallies and protests which read "No One is Illegal", which is true. No human being is illegal, however, their actions sometimes are. That's why we have laws. 

 

 If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

Foreign-Born Population Hits nearly 48 Million in September2022

U.S. Immigration---2022 in Review

 

DHS: Legal Immigration and Adjustment of Status ReportFiscal Year 2022 Quarter 2

Ten Graphics That Explain the U.S. Struggle With MigrantFlows in 2022

 

 

 

Is a Civil War in the Cards for America?

 It's been said here many times, and I think it's appropriate to say it again. America is more divided than at any time since just before the Civil War just over 150 years. We are actually more divided on the number of issues than were our forefathers, and the division on those issues appears to be at least as deep as it was back in the late 1850's. There seems to be the same lack of interest in compromise. Politics has become, for all intent and purpose, scorched earth.  It's all or nothing.

Let's look as the recent 2022 election. For the first time (at least in recent history), there was a protest which morphed into an attempt at a coup by intimidation. Such was the anger directed at Congress. But who was really surprised? The approval rating for the House has been in the toilet for decades as has that of the Senate.

 In most countries, with approval ratings like these (some as low as 9%, but most around low 20's) would have already triggered a revolution.  What did we expect? Even the judicial system has shown negative numbers along almost every other institution in America. Ironically, despite the Antifa and BLM "peaceful" riots and lootings, the police was one of the few institutions whose numbers were positive (along with the military).  

As of September 2022, some ten months after the Presidential election, 61% of Republicans believe the election was rigged; that Joe Biden didn't win the election fairly. On the other side of that coin, some 64% of voters don't believe the January 6 protest was spontaneous. In both instances that's 6 out 10 individuals (as an aside, immediately after the election 70% of Republicans and conservatives that the election was stolen).

To make matters worse, the majority of Americans no longer trust the mainstream media (or as conservatives now call it, "lamestream" media). To further irritate the Right, the liberal media continues to call the opposition to Biden's election the "Big Lie", echoing Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels' use of the term when referring to his brand of propaganda (a backhanded way of calling Republicans and conservatives "Nazis").

When Trump was President, the Left routinely waved flags and chanted "not my President" and the media encouraged it. When Trump supporters did the same thing (referring to Biden), it's suddenly "anti-American". Could the bias get any more obvious? 

Meanwhile, political establishment has lined up to go after Trump and his supporters every way they can, with the media carrying virtual non-stop coverage despite continuously getting some of their lowest viewership numbers ever.

The media's role has traditionally been providing the American People and the world with impartial and unbiased news. It's essential to a free nation. However, since Watergate the media (which has come under an ever tightening control of a smaller and smaller number of corporate owners) has become increasingly biased as to be essentially nothing more than the mouthpiece of their owners.

According to a Gallup Poll from October 2022, only 34% of Americans trust the mainstream media...despite how slick or sincere they look. When broken down by the partisanship, 70% of Liberals and Democrats trust the media, which given its liberal list, isn't surprising. 14% of conservatives and Republicans agree (likely Fox viewers), along with 11% of Independents (the nation's majority political bloc).

In case you're wondering, 96+% of all media is owned by just five corporations. That means everything you read, see, and hear. It also includes the movies you watch. The music formats you hear. The newspapers, magazines, and even what books are published.

They control internet content (and who gets censored, blocked, or "shadow blocked" such as yours truly). They even willing cooperate with government agencies in turning over personal information. Joseph Goebbels would have wet dreams over this kind of clout!

So, how serious it is...really? Well, it ain't good. According to a poll taken in August 2022 said that 66% of Americans believe that the divisions in this country have gotten worse since 2021. 62% of those think things are going to get worse with 60% expecting an increase in political violence.

Another poll from August 2022, roughly 43% of those polled think a civil war is likely in the next 10 years. A further 14% expect something close to a Civil War within the next decade or so. 55% of Republicans and conservatives agreed. So did 40% of Democrats. A earlier poll, from July 2022, indicated the number of Americans who expected a civil war sometime "over the next several years" was 50%.

The liberal leaning Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights was even more pessimistic. They said that 78% of Americans believe democracy is currently "under attack" (it is, but not by who they think). 53% think that America will no longer be a democracy in four to five years (not breaking news: we never were a democracy. We were a Republic, but no longer. We're a neo-fascist Corporatocracy). 54% say we're on the path to a civil war.

As an aside, their polling also indicated that race relations in America is getting worse. 62% say that discrimination against blacks is a "big problem". 62% think the government should do more to protect blacks. 66% want the government to take steps to lessen racial inequality while 55% want to see the government to do more to end income inequality. 67% want to see gay marriage protected while 62% want to protect abortion rights. 

A University of Virginia poll from  October 2020 said that they felt America was already in a cold civil War. The same poll also showed that 41% of those who voted for Joe Biden thought it was time to "split the country".  The Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School released an even more stunning poll result.

According to their poll, over half of those under 30 years of age saw America as "failing" with over one-third expecting a civil war in their lifetimes. But what if that happened? Well, the Civil War was the bloodiest America has ever experienced bar none. Approximately 600,000 people died during the four year conflict. 

Using the same percentage killed based on population, that would translate to about 19.8 million today, and that number could easily go higher. Much higher given that we have a far greater percentage of trained veterans as a percentage of population now than they did then, not to mention the deadliness of the weapons available.

They say that every revolution contains within its own seeds for self-destruction. While the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, America's future might be more balkanized. Our increasing diversity---racial, ethnic, and so forth, all under the guise of "multiculturalism" may well be the culprit.  It has already manifested itself in our politics by challenging our values, traditions, and even language.  

These changes are showing up in our neighborhoods and communities in the form of more drugs, more crime, and more violence, especially in the form of racial and ethnic gangs murdering for control of territory. In some instances, they demand "their own" do the policing, which is rejection of our legal system.

We already see "Little Havana", "Little Vietnam", "Little China", "Little Columbia", and so on. No longer do they seek to mix and integrate into their new homeland as our immigrant ancestors before them had done. Instead, they remain aloof and separate. Some don't even bother to learn English or allow their children to be taught the language despite being supported by taxpayer dollars, adding insult to injury.

Perhaps the only solution would be the balkanization of America, leaving  it a loosely based confederation of regions. It's happened before. It happened in Ancient Greece, in Ancient Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, and elsewhere. We are, as humans, naturally tribal after all.

 One thing is for sure, doing nothing will not only result in a de facto balkanization along various social, racial, and economic lines, under a neo-fascist Corportracy, but also allow the increasing diverse cultures to come into conflict, providing a greater excuse for the expansion of the surveillance state.

It seems there is only one other option, and that's to accept the multiculturalism on our own terms. But that means that the country we've known---our collective history---and we grew up with has to be allowed to fade into the past. No dominance of any one race or culture or language. It means changes in laws, values, and acceptance of different or perhaps new religions which could dominate or replace older ones. It means starting over again as a country surrounded by those who wish us harm.

It's possible. It's too has happened before, under Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, the Kings of Persia, and, albeit briefly, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. You could even include the Mongol Empire. But it's all dependent on maintaining liberal societies along with tolerant leaders and capable administrators. The instant someone comes who shows a preference or a tendency toward despotism, and it crumbles. Some have suggested an economic and political system run by artificial intelligence.

The power elites who dominate this country has been trying to divide us any way they can for decades. In that they've been largely successful. Divided we are easily controlled and manipulated. United and we're unstoppable, but can we do it? We've reached one of those historical crossroads. A "Rubicon" if you'd like, which will be crossed whether we want to or not. What will it be?  

 

 If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

 

Poll: 61% of Republicans still believe Biden didn't win fair and square in 2020

64% Think The January 6th Attack On The Capital Was Planned

Americans' Trust of the media Remains Near Record Lows.

Two in five Americans say a civil war is at least likely inthe next decade...

Leadership Conference  Poll:  54 Percent Fear America Is on the Path to Another Civil War...

Imagine another American Civil War, but this time in everystate

The Rise and Fall of Multicultural Empires

 

Religion, Freedom, and Americans

According to a Gallup Poll from December 2021, 75% of Americans identify with some form of religion. Of that, 69% named Christianity as their religion of choice.  When asked for specifics, 35% said Protestantism while 22% said they were Catholic. However, 12% said declined to say.

 Meanwhile, 7% of those surveyed said they weren't Christian. Of those, 2% professed to being Jewish, while 1% each identified as Muslim or Buddhist. 3% declined to answer. But it's worth noting that 22% of those interviewed said they had no religious preference.

The significance of this survey comes into focus when you look at a similar survey conducted in 1971 when 90% of those interviewed identified as Christian, a 15% drop over 50 years, or about two generations. Further highlighting the shift was that in 1971, just 6% said they weren't Christian and a mere 4% had no religious preference.

The 2021 Gallup Poll said that 49% of those who adhere to a religion felt said that it was important to them.  Another 27% said it was "fair" important, while 25% felt it was of little or no particular importance.  But back in 1965, it was quite different. Then 70% of those survey said religion was "very important" to them. That dropped to 52% in 1978 before rising to 60% in 1990 where it remained consistent until 1996 before dropping to its present level of below 50%.

Church membership and attendance are two other key factors affecting religion in America. In 2000, Gallup asked participants if they attended a religious service in person or online, 44% said they did. Compare that to 49% in 1958 who attended services. By 2021, that number had dropped to just 29%.

When it came to membership, the numbers are just as bad. When Gallup first asked respondents if they formally belonged to a church back in 1937, 73% said yes. In 1999, that number was still pretty high with 70% saying they were. However, in 2021, that figure had dropped off to 47%.

The decline was primarily among those under 30 years of age, while it remained fairly stable among seniors.  For those born before 1946, those belonging to a organized religion dropped from 77% to 66%. From Babyboomers (1946 - 1964), that number went from 67% to 59%. Gen X (1965 - 1980), the figure declined by 12%, 62% to 50%. Finally, Millennials (1981 - 1996). Just 36% are belong to some religious denomination. As for Gen Z, 34% were unaffiliated with any religion.

When we break those numbers down further in order to get a clearer picture things get really interesting. First, the largest drop in membership was among Catholics who've dropped from 73% in 1998 to 58% as of 2020. For Protestants, it went from 73% to 64%, with mainstream churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, etc) being hit the hardest. Even Evangelical churches, which had the largest growth just a few years ago, are seeing record number declines.

Women, once the staple of church membership, has dropped by 20% over the last 20 years, down to 53%. 18% for men or 46%. Among whites, 59% attend, a decline of 16%. For blacks it's was slightly worse--- a 19% decline to 59%. For Hispanics, however, the numbers were worse. Since 2011, church membership among Hispanics has dropped off to just 37%.

As an aside, a 2018 Pew study showed that for the first time ever, the majority of Hispanics in America are no longer Catholic (something I'm sure certain Catholic service organizations were expecting when encouraging Latinos to illegally enter America). In 2009, the number of Hispanics who considered themselves Catholic was 57%. By 2019, that number had dropped to 47%.

Hispanics who considered themselves Protestant rose from 23% to 26%. Of those, the majority self-identified as Evangelical. 3% said they were no longer Christian, while an impressive 23% said they were agnostic, atheist, or nothing in particular.

There's a great line from the novel "Dune", written by Frank Herbert that says "When religion and politics ride in the same cart a whirlwind follows". Although there's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state, America has done a great deal to keep religion and politics as separated as possible. It's not that the Founding Fathers disapproved of religion, far from it.  They were just fearful of a state created religion like what had forced others from Europe.

Under a state religion, others exist at the discretion and magnanimity of those in power; to be granted or withdrawn at a whim. In addition, the state church imposed a tax on the citizens as well as on the non-state churches. In addition, the members of these non-approved churches were required to support their minister and church which represented another tax burden many couldn't afford.

The decline of religious membership and participation among Liberals went from 56% to 35% over the last 20 years, a 21% drop. Among moderates, they experienced a 21% as well, going from 66% to 45%. Perhaps not unexpectedly, Conservatives fared the best, falling 14% from 78% to 64%, which still represents a majority.

When we break it down along partisan lines, Independents, who are the nation's largest political demographic, fell from 59% to 41%; a 18% drop.  Democrats saw the largest drop, going from 71% down to 46%, which represents a falloff of 25%.   Again, as expected, Republicans had the least drop. Over the last 20 years, they've gone from 77% to 65%, which once again still leaves them with a majority of participants.

It's ironic that the Left it portrayed by the media as being morally superior, while accusing Conservatives and Republicans of corrupting Christianity; of advocating a form of "neo-fascism" Christian Theocracy the way the Taliban has corrupted Islam. After all, wasn't it said that if fascism ever came to America it would be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible?

 They cite the Right's push for mandatory prayer in school while ignoring other faiths and the non-religious, while also encouraging pray at social functions, not to mention limiting or prohibiting diversity and cultural inclusivity (aka "multiculturalism").

The Right, on the other hand, cite the need to recreate a "melting pot" where no one group is better than the other. At the same time, for a society to prosper, they argue that a society must share a set of common values and a common language. "You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything", isn't that the promise of a "anything goes" society? 

They also point out that the religious Right was behind the move by the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade, and thus making abortion illegal. The Left sees abortion as a "pro-choice" issue, whether anyone else agrees with it or not. It's their position that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases while the religious oriented Right hold that that option ended the moment she became pregnant. 

Even what constitutes a "unborn child" is disputed! The Right says that at the moment of conception, life has begun and all future decisions must be based on that. Meanwhile, the Left believes the process of life (cell division) may technically begin at conception, but you don't have a "life" until there's a heartbeat and brain activity (the absence of which is near uniformly acknowledged as death by the medical community). 

There are some on the Right who believe that the pregnancy must come to term no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy (ie: rape or accidental) or possible medical disabilities that might bring up to and including those affecting the mother's wellbeing, and will cite cherry picked passages from the scripture of their choice to support their claims. But what if the individual isn't of their faith or culture? What then? 

Other issues which separate the Left and Right along religious lines include the acceptance of homosexuality, the admission of female clergy (or gay clergy), the role of women in church and at home just to name a few. None of these even touch on groups like the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Mormons, and other non-traditional religions which have either in part or in totality rejected aspects of modern society.

As an aside, the Mormons are one of the few Christian sects which has actually maintained their numbers. While the Utah based church hasn't grown, it's numbers haven't dropped off like other Protestant denominations have (in 2020, the growth rate was 0.6%. In 2021 it was 0.85%). It's primary areas of growth has been in Africa despite a significant drop in missionaries (thanks mainly to Covid-19).

So, what religious based groups are doing well?  In the U.S., the fastest growing organized religion is Islam, albeit the numbers themselves are extremely small. Islam makes up less than 1% in the U.S. and it's growth rate has been 0.6% to 1.5% over the past few years. Nothing to write Mecca about! However, Islam is expected to surpass Judaism in the very near future with Islam reaching eventually about 2.8% of the population compared to 1.8% for Jews. Non-organized religions such as pantheism, paganism, Wiccan, Native American, and African faith systems are also growing rapidly as is the more secular Humanism.  

It's also worth noting that since the collapse in the 1980's of Communism in Eastern Europe, churches have made a comeback in a big way. Under Communism, atheism was the defacto "state religion". Nevertheless, efforts to suppress or even outlaw religion under Communism was largely unsuccessful. Growth mainly among Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, and Lutheranism has rapid and sustained.

Even in the former center of Communism, Moscow, President Vladimir Putin is a semi-regular attendee at religious services where 71% openly identify as Orthodox, 10% Muslims and 15% who remain "unaffiliated".  87% of Poland are Catholic. 95% of Romania and Moldavia adhere to some religion. 84% for Croatia, and so the story goes.

Religious freedom was denied the people of Eastern Europe for nearly 50 years. Now it's back with a vengeance. Perhaps you have to lose something to realize its value, which for the people under Communism not only included freedom of religion, but by extension, freedom of expression and speech, association, movement, ownership of property, equality of justice, and control over our own persons.

Religion is not mandatory in the West. Those days of autocracy and official religions have thankfully long passed. Today we have the option to accept or reject it. In other parts of the world the people don't have that choice. The state has made the decision for them as to what's acceptable or not, and the penalty for rejecting that decision can be brutal, if not fatal. Migrants to Europe, who claim to be seeking economic and social freedom, are trying to impose their repressive religious and social values on the very citizens whose nations accepted them.

The Founding Fathers intended to create a new society where we had the freedom of religion (which by definition also includes freedom from religion). This freedom meant you could freely practice your religion but you couldn't impose it on others. It also meant the state was prohibited adopting any religion or from imposing any religious beliefs or penalties in its citizens. For its time, this was huge.

Our Founders bequeath to us a freedom of choice, which implied, among other things, the right to believe as we were so inclined too, as well as freedom of speech and expression, association, the right to a fair trial, and the right to defend ourselves from those who would seek to deprive us of these and other rights, which goes to the Founder's belief in the natural and preeminent rights of the individual.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority For First Time

How Religious Are Americans?

 

Mainstream Protestants Make Up Shrinking Number of U.S.Adults

"Seven Sisters" of Mainline Protestantism Still Bleed Members

Majority of Hispanics in the U.S. no longer Catholic newstudy finds

The Unlikely Rebound of Mainline Protestantism

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanctuary Cities

Sanctuary cities. They've been with us since the being of civilization. In the bible, there are six such cities, all under the control of the priestly Levites. These six cities, Bosor, Ramoth and Golan west of the Jordan River and Kedesh, Hebron, and Sheham to its east, were places where individuals accused of crime could escape to in order find sanctuary until the crimes they were accused of could be adjudicated by the either the priestly court or local ruler.

 Even the main temple in Jerusalem could be used as a temporary shelter. The ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians also provided cities or temples where the accused could find a brief respite. The ancient Greeks too had cities of refuge, including various temples until such time as the accused could prove their innocence.

Fast forward to the modern era and we find the concept of the cities of refuge being played out in the form of sanctuary cities. In most cases this applies to immigrants trying to get away from war, famine, or disease, however, it's also come to include economic migrants which are individuals seeking better economic opportunities. This is especially the case in Europe which has adopted basically an open door policy toward these individuals. However, that has proven to be disastrous.

In numerous cases, cities and towns have been overrun. Crime has become rampant, partly as a result of a clash of cultures and refusal of the immigrants to adapt to their host country's laws, customs, language, or values. As a result, the immigrants have attempted to transplant their laws, customs, and values onto their new homeland and completely rejected the very notion of assimilation.

The governments throughout Western Europe and the UK have proven to be woefully unprepared for what they willingly invited into their country. As a result, these governments have unleashed nothing less than an invasion which will ultimately result in a complete or nearly complete replacement of the native population, along with their traditions, religions, customs, and culture.

To make matters worse, the governments have largely responded by cracking down on its own citizens, including the victims of the crime caused by these migrants (especially the victims of gang rapes which are often blamed on the victims!). These governments have gone as far as dictating to its native populations what to wear, when to go out and under what circumstances, removing traditional items (such as pork or liquor) from menus for instance; all in the name of "tolerance". 

They've even allow foreign laws to be applied on their own soil (laws which are, by their very nature, in direct conflict of existing laws and customs), and the enforcement of "no go" zones, thus sanctioning de facto occupation zones within their own country.

Finally, while officially there as "economic migrants", the majority of these immigrants have opted not to work. Instead, they've managed to imbed themselves into the very generous economic and social safety nets provided by these countries, and thus, the native population ends up supporting these "invaders" with their tax dollars while being forced into a form of submission to foreign laws and culture. The result has been bringing the once highly successful countries to their knees. As an aside, neither the United Nations or Amnesty International regard economic migrants as justification for any sort of amnesty.

Once, these countries were quite successful and prosperous; where individuals shared a similar work ethic and believed in similar values. Crime was hardly more than a blimp on the radar. Both the quality of life and life expediency were ranked in the top ten in the world for decades. Europe's cities and towns were known for not just being generally safe, but also for being pristine. There was a sense of pride in keeping these communities clean, especially in Germany, the Lowlands, and Scandinavia. However, the migrant crisis, triggered by criminally naive politicians and poorly prepared government infrastructures has all but destroyed what wars and earlier invaders could not.

America has fared better, but not by much. America has always been a nation which has welcomed immigrants. We are, in fact, a nation created by immigrants. Practically every nation, ethnic group, and religion can be found in the America. However, things have greatly changed. Once upon a time, America was viewed as a "melting pot", where individuals came and added their cultures and experiences to the rest. They quickly assimilated into society; adopting its language, customs, and values to create a unique culture all our own. An American Culture.

Naturally, immigrants tended to seek out others who were from the same country, similar religions or cultures. This resulted in the creation of small enclaves, mostly in cities and large towns. However, it didn't change the hope of those individuals of becoming totally immersed in the American experience. Many of these immigrants changed their names, religions and any other links to their past.

They tried to learn what they could about their new homeland long before immigrating. They did their best to learn English, which was a source of deep personal pride (in some cases, English language classes were held onboard the passenger ships). America was seen as a place to start over. Nothing mattered more than to become "Americans".

Most of these immigrants were individuals coming to seek a new life; a chance to start over. Later, immigrants were actively brought to this country by the federal government for humanitarian reasons. Typically this included individuals being persecuted for political, ethnic, or religious reasons. It also included individuals affected by natural and manmade disasters, particularly wars. However, all who sought to come here were expected to do so in accordance to our immigration laws, which, while strict, were viewed the world over as being more liberal and open than most.

However, that started to change in the late 1960's. Individuals who came to this country were encouraged not to assimilate. They were told they didn't need to learn English; we would "ease" their transition into this new society so they could take as long as they needed, if indeed, they even desired to integrate at all. Some never bothered to learn the language or understand the laws and culture of their adopted homeland; many saw America simply as a place to work and send money back home. The result was the creation of a subclass of immigrants which never became a part of the American mosaic; creating pockets of their native countries, transplanted on a new soil. This was "multiculturalism".

The result was a slow but steady increase in individuals who came here illegally with no intent in either assimilating or becoming citizens. In the beginning, most did so to join family and friends who had come to this country legally, however, for whatever reason, they decided to do so illegally. Generally these individuals had a criminal record, lacked adequate skills to find employment or had health issues (which included "anchor babies"). 

What had originally been a trickle had become a flood by the middle 1980's. The situation became so bad that in 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a bill granting the estimated six million illegal immigrants amnesty (excluding those with criminal records). The idea was that the costs of rounding up and deporting these individuals was simply too time consuming and expensive.

Today, various towns, cities, and even states have gone a step further and declared themselves "sanctuaries". By that they mean that those in this country illegally are welcome. The local police departments and other taxpayer funded government entities are instructed not to cooperate in any way with federal authorities in the capture and deportation of these individuals. 

At present there are nine states and well over 100 counties, cities, and towns are have proclaimed themselves "open" to illegal immigrants in defiance to federal laws. Yet, at the same time, these same locales continue to receive federal money. Some have actually had the audacity to ask Washington for more federal dollars to cope with the increased costs of supporting these individuals!

Illegal immigration is ultimately the result of a demand for cheap labor. Employers want to avoid certain OSHA requirements such as safe and healthy work environments, wage laws, and taxes. Unions favor it because it increases their membership and puts dues in the bank. Religious institutions and churches, looking to increase their membership and influence, provide aid by encouraging illegals to enter the country through a system of safe houses, providing temporary shelter (often on church property), jobs, permanent housing, and instruct them on ways to circumvent various laws in order to gain access to taxpayer based services as well as medical care (the cost of which are passed on to consumers and taxpayers).

Unfortunately, it appears this situation will not be resolved until the President and Congress muster the backbone to enforce current laws regarding aiding and abetting criminals. The federal government must first cut off all federal money to states, cities, towns, and communities who provide "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants. Secondly, the Department of Justice needs to bring charges against all those who refuse compliance with federal immigration laws, be they governors, mayors, city councils, or whomever.

States which issue driver's licenses or permit voter registration of illegal immigrants should be voided. That is, a driver's license issued by the State of California or Colorado should not been held as valid outside that state without proper legal identification such as a birth certificate and/or cross checked with a expanded E-Verify. Voter registration should be accompanied by a photo ID and also cross checked with E-Verify. Meanwhile, state legislatures must take whatever steps necessary to make illegal any sanctuary status by the state, as well as counties, cities, and other communities along with a zero tolerance for anyone aiding or employing illegal immigrants.

That being said, the federal government needs to take more aggressive steps to stop the demand. Any employer found employing an illegal worker should have their business license suspended for 90 days for the first offense and face a minimum fine of $10,000 per illegal employee. In addition, corporate officers must be held responsible and should face 90 days jail time. Finally, they must be placed on a permanent watch list. This includes not just the business, but the officers as well.

A second offense should result in a six month suspension of their business license, 180 days in jail, and $25,000 fine per individual. A third offense should result in a permanent suspension of their business license, one year jail time, and $50,000 per individual. Needless to say, any federal contracts should be suspended with the first conviction and permanently after that. Any company with federal contracts who employs an officer guilty of the third offense in a managerial, supervisory, or consultant role must forfeit those federal contracts.

As for non-profits, particularly churches and religious organizations, should face equal consequences for aiding and abetting illegal immigrants. This includes loss of their tax exempt status for the same period as their business license. As the 70's TV detective "Beretta" used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". In addition, no one should have access to taxpayer funded services unless they are able to verify they are in this country legally.

Illegal immigration currently cost taxpayers in the multi-billions of dollars on an annual basis. Given the ever widening income gap, increasing food and healthcare costs, not to mention the ever rising tax and utility rates plus the deepening debt many local and states governments are finding themselves, taxpayers can't afford to support those who intentionally defy our laws and then expect us to support them. The majority of us are having trouble just supporting ourselves.

On a related issue, America has a long and well established tradition of religious tolerance, as well as keeping religion out of politics. I doubt many in this country has a problem with Islam or any other religion. However, we will not tolerate attempts to replace or substitute our laws with their religious oriented laws for any reason. We will not allow what has happened to Europe and the UK to happen to this country, and we have no problem with defying politicians unlike our cousins across the pond.

Sanctuary cities of the past were created to provide a place where the accused could go and gain time to prepare a defense against their alleged crime. Today they've become a place where individuals are not accused criminals, but acknowledged criminals can go to avoid punishment. We cannot allow either states or elected individuals to pick and choose what laws they will enforce any more than we can allow churches or employers to ignore existing laws. Until those laws are changed legally, they remain laws and must be enforced.


Center for Immigration Studies-Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States

Sanctuary Cities: What are they?

Sanctuary Cities: Top 3 Pros and Cons

Who Are You? On Being An American in America

It was once a matter of some pride to declare one's citizenship. In fact, it was the hope and dream of nearly every immigrant coming to this country to become an American citizen. Many would do everything they could to learn about their new home. They would even try to pick up every bit of English they could, either before leaving the "Old Country" or on the ship over. Of course, those were the days when America was seen as a "melting pot"; where we left our past behind and adopted the traditions, values, and, of course, the language of the place which many called the "Land of Second Chances".

Of course, those days seem condemned to another time as distant as Colonial America, the Old West, or the Roaring Twenties. Today we've become a land of "Multiculturalism" where immigrants are encouraged (even expected) to bring their religion, values and traditions, prejudices, hatreds, and languages with them.

It now commonplace to go into any store like a Wal-Mart or Meijer's at certain times and barely hear any English at all. Of course, it's just as common to see individuals walking around in their native dress. Nearly every grocery store now caters to their dietary demands, often while sacrificing space to more traditional foods.

But perhaps in some ways this is to be expected every time you have a large influx of immigrants, however, never (or if so, very rarely) has grocers pushed aside more popular items in favor of someone else's. What's worse is the fact that an increasingly number immigrant communities are demanding that stores, restaurants, and grocery stores stop carrying certain items out of their religious requirements. In other words, if they can't have it, you won't have it either.

We're starting to see demands that stores stop carrying liquor, tobacco, or pork products because it "offends" them. At the same time, there is a slow but growing demand that women stop wearing certain attire or going to certain public places---especially unescorted---for the same reason. Why is that? I am something of a amateur historian. I'm pretty well versed in most cultures, religions, and so forth. Never have I read or heard of any group in the US demanding that others follow their traditions. Never, and yet it appears to be here.

I have, however, often heard of various groups going to other countries and being told that they have to conform to the laws and values of the native population (including learning the native language). In fact, that's quite common. They usually call it an invasion. Speaking of laws, since when does an immigrant population go to another country and demand that their laws be accept along side or in lieu of the host country's? But, in Europe that's exactly what has happened in numerous places such as the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland. It's also starting to show up in America with many on the Left actually supporting it, which, to be perfectly honest, I find to be both amusing and at the same time, rather naive. Why you ask?

Well, those on the Left who seem to support these infringements on our society in the name of solidarity or whatever would actually find themselves in a rather difficult (at best) position should their efforts succeed. For instance, take the gay community in this country. Many support the Muslim community in this country, which is perfectly fine. However, they also support the extremists within the Muslim community, which is the most active and vocal.

It is this a particularly virulent strain which is deeply opposed to everything about gays. In the Middle East, they routinely throw gays off rooftops, impale them, burn them at the stake, and all sorts of other nasty means of torture and murder of both gay men and lesbian women (bisexuals included). Meanwhile, women who've been raped are the ones punished and more often than not themselves murdered for committing the "crime" of being raped. At worse, the rapist may be expected to "marry" the individual he violently raped. Doesn't that bring up images of marital bliss?

Women, to them, are no better than second class citizens. They don't believe women should drive, vote, or have any other commonly accepted rights. That includes the ability to speak freely or openly, to dress as they please, to drink, smoke, or go anywhere they want when they want. Girls, as young as 9 years old, are sometimes made to marry men decades older then themselves. Why? Religious tradition. As an aside, this tradition also includes sexual relations with young boys too. But should we allow that "tradition", which is a form of pedophilia, to be practiced in this country? Not to do so could be seen as impinging on their 1st Amendment rights.

Want a career ladies? Forget it. Women aren't even supposed to attend school beyond an elementary level. Those who do often run the risk of being publicly beaten, scared, or even having acid thrown on their faces. Meanwhile, those who dare teach these young girls are beaten or even murdered while their school books are burned, sometimes along with the schools. Can you imagine what could happen if this strain should become the dominant force in this country the way it has elsewhere? Is that what "feminist" in this country want? Is any of this what the average American woman wants?

However, I want to make clear that this isn't all or even majority of Islam. Many have adopted much of Western Civilization, including full and equal rights for women, tolerance for homosexuality, and other standards, which is as it should be. However, these are the moderates who tend to be quiet and stay in the background. The few who support this backwards 9th century way of thinking, are also the ones most engaged in terrorism throughout the world, and they tend to be the most vocal and activist of the groups in the West.

While I generally don't care what any group says, does or believes, I draw the line at being told that I or anyone else has to comply lest they become "offended". I've never been known for kowtowing to any person, group, belief, or ideology. Nevertheless, no one should ever be forced to conform to another's traditions, values (including religious) or anything else. If someone wants to voluntarily and willingly conform adapt, or adopt some belief system, political ideology, or cultural traditions, that's their business. But to be compelled, bullied, or threaten into it, then there's a critical issue that we as nation need to address.

Personally, I have literally no problems with someone's race, sexual orientation, ethnic group, religion, or whatever. Frankly, I don't need to know nor do I really care. If they treat me and mine with respect and courtesy, then I'll do the same. I don't think I'm unique in that regard. I think most, perhaps the overwhelming majority, of people in this country feel the same way. However, to be told that we have restrict what we're doing, wearing, saying eating, or coerced into removing historical objects and symbols in order to make someone else feel better about themselves else be called a "bigot" or a "racist", I don't think so (not that name calling ever meant anything to me anyway). This is especially true when these restrictions work one way.

To be told that I can't go to the grocery and buy something only to find that it's been discontinued because someone or some group complained about it, then we have a problem. To be told by my waiter at a restaurant that I can't order a BLT and beer because they've been removed from the menu to avoid "offending" some group, there is going to be a problem. To be told I can't watch a certain TV show on a cable or satellite channel that I'm paying for because someone else "disapproves" of it, then we have a problem. If they don't like the show, then switch the channel. There are literally hundreds of other choices for them to pick from.

When I try to call some business I need to speak with and being told that I have to press "1" for English, they're likely to hear some words in English they weren't expecting. In fact, I flat out refuse to press anything. The call will be ran through automatically if you do nothing anyway! If someone wants to speak with someone in their native language, then let them press some number...or go to where that language is spoken. I don't care which.

To be told that there are 24 or 57 or whatever genders and I have to play along or I get sanctioned somehow, then we've got a problem. It's just like having to worry about using the proper pronoun when speaking to someone so you don't hurt their feelings (or worse, get fined in some places), then there's going to be a problem. The last time I worried about using the proper pronoun I was in the 4th grade (I've learned a few adjectives since then by the way).

When some individual or group tells my wife, sister, mother, niece, or whomever that they disapprove of what they're wearing or doing because it "offends" them, we're going to have words. When someone tells me that some Y chromosome carrying dude who has "chosen" to be a female is going into the restroom with my wife, my mother, or any of the other naturally born females in my family or who are friends, there is a very serious problem and I'm absolutely positive that I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

On a related issue, when people choose to come to this country, great. We, as Americans, welcome them with open arms, especially if they're bring some badly needed skill with them. However, all we ask is that they do so legally; that they respect our laws and do it the right way. It would be demanded of us if we wanted to immigrate to their native country right? Those who seek to enter this country illegally are first and foremost showing their contempt for our national sovereignty and to our laws.

Secondly, they are thumbing their noses at all those who are trying to come here the right way; the legal way. Think of it this way. You've been standing in line for hours to see a movie you've been waiting to see for weeks. Then a bunch of people come along and cut in line way ahead of you. Then get to go in without having to pay for a thing, while you have to pay full price, assuming they don't run out of tickets and tell you they're sold out and you'll have to come back tomorrow...or next week.

Then, after having to wait a few hours longer than you would have, you find out that these individuals got free drinks, snacks, and preferred seating. Worse yet, you're told that you have to pay a portion of their tickets, drinks, and everything else they get. Sound fair to you? But wait, there's more. Since they don't speak English (even though you took the time to at least learn some), the film will be shown in their native language. If you're lucky, you may get subtitles. Maybe.

Well, that's a pretty good example of how our current immigration system works, or at least how the Left would like to work. Meanwhile, they apply the same idea to these so-called "sanctuary" states and cities, then have the audacity to demand more federal funding to pay for the problems they've created. It doesn't seem exactly fair to me, especially when they aid these individuals with the ways and means to spread throughout the country, making them more difficult to apprehend. But then that's the idea isn't it? When you complain or speak out they call you a "xenophobe" or some other name they'd likely have to go look up to understand the meaning of.

Of course, we're not even touching on the consequences of these individuals coming into the country not just illegally, but without ever having been inoculated against diseases that we had eliminated from this country like TB, measles, whooping cough, mumps, and a whole range of other highly contagious diseases. The result could be catastrophic for this country. Perhaps causing thousands of preventable deaths. Who should be held responsible then?

Meanwhile, liberal churches and religious groups act as if they're exempt from our laws by encouraging, aiding, and protecting these individuals; showing them how to cheat taxpayers out of money by manipulating the system. Sleazy business owners take advantage of them by working them in substandard conditions for next to nothing. So, who's the real criminal here? The ones who knowingly broke the law or those who exploit them for god or profit?

America used to be a country where people came to shed their past; to start over. They were proud to become Americans. People were free to live out their lives, so long as they didn't try to impose their religions, values or hatred on others. We valued the individual, but we were always willing to offer a helping hand, but don't expect others to do it for you; don't expect to be given something for nothing. No one owes you anything.

We were created as a nation of laws, and we expect others to follow those same laws, regardless of origin, faith, income bracket or elected office. Period. There was and remains no room for competing legal systems. While people spoke the tongue of their past, often in private or within their communities, they strove to learn and speak the language of their adopted home---English.

A common language is the fabric which weaves a single nation. But those days appear to be fading. In its place are those who are planting the seeds to create a multicultural and divided nation; a nation with different values, traditions, languages, and even laws. Others who've experienced this have quickly fallen; splintered into dozens of separate and unique pieces; the ancient Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, not to mention Austro-Hungary, Spanish, French or British empires. Even as recently as Yugoslavia, the USSR, or Czechoslovakia in the 1980's and 90's. Do not expect that we will not share their fate if we continue along the same path.

Slipping Off the Mask of Identity Politics

We've all heard the terms---LGBQT Equality, Alt-Right, Black Nationalism, Senior Entitlements, Veteran Needs, and countless others. These are all examples of the latest trend on modern political landscape--- Identity Politics. In fact, identity politics can now be used to define issues germane solely to seniors, urban vs rural, education, culture, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, and so on.

There's really nothing new about identity politics. It's been around from almost the moment we started coming together to form villages, towns, and cities thousands of years ago. Mankind is tribal. We've always been tribal. We are hardwired to be tribal. Tribalism is what has protected us, provided for us, sheltered us, and enabled us to develop sub-specialties which led to the creation of economies and thus civilizations. Identity politics is our incarnation of tribalism.

The modern notion of tribalism or identity politics began in the early 1960's with the likes of King, Abernathy, Randolph, Young, Wilkins and the Civil Rights Movement they led which sought to create social and economic parity between the black community and white community. This later resulted in the creation of a competing parallel moment which sought to replace the white, mostly male, political, social and economic leadership with a black counterpart. In fact, in some cases, it sought to create a competing counterculture; a separate society which wanted instant change "by all means possible". This was the black nationalism of Huey Newton and Malcolm X. Nevertheless, the concept of modern identity politics was born.

The term itself is thought to have first emerged in 1977 as part of a political manifesto put out by Barbara Smith, one of the founders of a black Lesbian feminist group, the Combahee River Collective, which also had a strong Marxist bent to it. What's different is that today's version is more about the creation of a very narrow demographic which is focused on just a few issues for their own benefit at the expense of all other issues and groups.

Under Classical Marxism, the notion of identity politics was already well defined. It was the working class---the proletariat---against the bourgeoisie; that is, the owners and Capitalists. However, the objective was to change the social structure in order to benefit all not just the working class. Under National Socialism (aka "Nazism"), it was about removing one group---the Jews---and replacing them with another group---the "Aryans", and with it, creating a new social, economic, and political order.

Nowadays, it's not about changing the social order. It's about substituting one group for another so society itself doesn't change. Just one's place in it. The Far Left, as well as the Democratic Party, are often accused of promoting identity politics, both in terms of claiming solidarity with each group and sub-group's goals while at the same accusing Conservatives and the Republican Party of backing the Alt-Right or Alternative/Far Right, which is the politically correct term associated with "white nationalists", "white supremacists", "white nationalism" and others on the so-called Far Right (we are to believe this includes the Tea Party, pro-life, and those who are anti-illegal immigration or pro 2nd Amendment).

Of course, it should go without saying that there are those on the Right who maintain that the extreme Left and Democratic Party are trying to promise everything to everybody in order to cobble together a new political base which includes black and Hispanic nationalist groups like Black Lives Matter and La Raza, as well as those who have pro-Marxist or pro-socialist leaning, radical feminists, pro-choice, and pro-amnesty group along with those who'd like to restrict or prohibit gun ownership and stifle free speech. Even those like Antifa, which often behaves like the Fascist it says it opposes, are being courted.

Regardless of who accuses who of what, the end result has been a further division of this country by those who are solely interested in their own issues at the expense of everyone else. It's not like these groups are able to achieve any real political clout beyond the regular news cycle. Nevertheless, the corporate media makes them seem larger and more powerful than they actually are. The real special interest group, the moneyed powerbrokers, continue on with politics as usual.

These other groups do nothing more than serve as a distraction from what's really happening behind the scenes in Washington and on Wallstreet. We find ourselves fighting against each other on issues and causes which mean little or nothing. The identity politics of old may have organized around one segment of society, their ultimate objective was to transform society as a whole for the betterment of all; not to the exclusion of all as it is today.

It's time we take stock of what we have in common with each other and not in the manufactured differences which the media promotes. As long as we remain divided, we cannot focus on the crimes and violence being committed at home and abroad in our name. Only by coming together as unhyphenated Americans will we be able to address these modern day robber barons; the globalists who seek to undermine our national sovereignty, undercut our Bill of Rights, and usurp our Constitution.

We've become an Oligarchy. Power is in the hands of a ruling political class comprised of plutocrats and an elite clique of very powerful and wealthy CEOs. There is still time to take our country back and restore what we've lost, but the sands are quickly running out of our nation's hourglass. We're seeing our freedoms chipped away piecemeal. There's an invasion taking place in Europe and countless attempts to repeat the experience within our borders. Jobs, especially union jobs, are exported overseas, leaving many Americans scrambling to find ways to pay their bills and keep food on the table while taxes and public utility rates increase in order to pay for these unwelcome changes.

Even our children and grandchildren aren't safe. Through the inclusion that's identity politics, we have drag queens reading to our kids...in school libraries... about the normalcy and joys of gay relationships . Some have even been putting on excerpts from their routines! I couldn't care less about someone's sexual proclivities, but damn, should children be exposed to this stuff at such a young age? Others are trying to claim that pedophilia is normal; just another "sexual orientation" like any other. The hell it is!

Being called a "racist" is now justified if you, for instance, happen to disagree with someone of another race (this works only one way of course). It seems to be a handy little tool to get what you want or to get out of trouble. Reverse racism has become acceptable to the point where whites and even Asians are expected to feel ashamed of their racial and/or ethic heritage. There are even white females who feel that they're "obligated" to have sex with a minority male in order to "atone" for some mythical transgression of their ancestors. Shouldn't we simply focus on ending racism period? At one point, not that many years ago, racism had all but vanished.

There are those who seem indignant that the majority of Americans support protecting our borders, our national sovereignty or not using taxpayer money to support those here illegally. Those individuals talk about so-called "migration rights" as if a secure border is somehow a bad thing. There are religious organizations and church who think they're are exempt from federal laws concerning immigration; that we should "embrace" foreign languages, values, and traditions at the expense of our own. Even some cities and states believe they can ignore federal immigration laws with impunity, and still have the audacity to demand more federal dollars to cover the cost! This is yet another form of identity politics.

When it comes to religion, it's just as crazy. Under the facade of modern identity politics, Christians, as well as Jews, Hindus, and Buddhist, among others, are expected to curtail their religious practices so that one group doesn't feel "offended" or excluded. There are even LGBQT and feminists groups who support this when, in truth, that religion would murder the other two without a second thought because that's part of its guiding dogma. It would be their "religious duty"! Again, identity politics.

The irony (and humor) here is nearly overwhelming. It would be like "Hasidic Jews for Nazis" in 1934. Meanwhile, the US is attempting to impose "democracy" on a people who barely have any concept of democracy while attempting to gain control through military means of their natural resources.

We are under surveillance in some form or fashion nearly every moment of our lives (for our own protection we're told). We watch helplessly as wars and conflicts are orchestrated under the banner of "spreading democracy" or overthrowing some tyrant (which, as usually the case, we helped to install and whose usefulness has expired) while deals over the control of resources and assets are made in boardrooms and on Capitol Hill.

The United States was intended to be a unique experiment in the history of Mankind. It was to be a place where anyone from anywhere, regardless of their circumstances, including race, religion, or ethnic group could come and start over. All we asked was that you leave behind your past prejudices and hatreds; that you accepted our laws and values, and you did it legally. There was no room for hyphenated loyalties. You were an American or you weren't. Naturally, it helped if you spoke out language. Whatever you brought with you in terms of traditions and so forth was blended in with every other immigrant. It was called the "The Melting Pot", and it made us a great nation.

Today, we're told to embrace "multiculturalism"; where everyone could bring a piece of their home country with them, along with all its petty bias and hatreds. You could even bring a system of religious laws not compatible with democracy, and yet we're told to accept those differences as if nothing will ever happen. Identity politics once again. Of course, all we have to do is watch world news to see that's not true. The social and religious values are different; often brutally so. The work ethics is different. One society believes in hard work and self-improvement while the other believes in getting by off of others.

This is the other side of identity politics. It says that all societies have equal value and thus are fully compatible with ours; that no society is better than another. This doesn't encourage building a stronger society, but one which will result in a balkanized nation. Of course, by breaking us down into the smallest denominator, we're more controllable; more manageable, and if you're setting at the very top of the food chain and your goal is absolute control, then that's exactly what you want.

A Place To Belong: Assimilation or Conquest?

The history of the world has been primarily one of conflict. The main source of the that conflict has been the result of a clash of cultures, resulting in wars, conflicts, genocides, brought about by manufactured starvation through the withholding or deliberate destruction on natural resources, the intentional infection of various people by some biological agent (whether they actually understood as such or not), enslavement, or simply being breed out of existence. I'm sure there are many more examples, but you get the picture.

Direct conflict seems to be the most common. We don't know how many people have died as a result of wars or conflicts down through history, though we can make reasonable guesses with increasing accuracy we come closer to the actual event, but even that's occasionally sketchy since no one really takes time to count the dead during a battle and often, war crimes are hidden or written off as something else. We do know, for instance, that approximately 100 million died just in the 20th century alone; perhaps more when events like trauma, wounds, the long term effects of disease or radiation are factored in.

So what happens when cultures come into conflict? Well, first, I think we should define "cultures" to get a better understanding of what we're talking about. Webster's New World Dictionary defines culture as "the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc of a given people in a given period: civilization". It also includes in the definition "mannerisms or speech". I would expand this to includes values based not just on a common history, but also on a common religion when that religion has been thoroughly integrated throughout society to the exclusion of all others.

Hinduism, which is prevalent in India, is a good example. It, along with a common historical tradition, has created its own value system, including moralistic code of conduct and behavior towards others. It has superimposed a caste system and specific conduct both within the caste and in dealing with those outside of one's own caste for instance (of course, the caste system has, to a large degree, broken down due to outside influences, the least of which being improved education. We can find the same thing in Japan (which has its own history of a caste system as well), China, and throughout Asia and Africa.

Again, most of this has faded due to the influence of mostly outside factors, especially as they became increasingly in contact with the West, which has tended to be more egalitarian by comparison. Both China's and Japan's feudal systems began to lose their influence after contact with American, British, Dutch, and Portuguese sailors increased. Initially, contact was based on the notion of trade; mostly of goods, etc, but pretty soon it encompassed the trade of ideas. I guess we can chalk that up to natural human curiosity! After all, Mankind is an inquiring species. We are hardwired to investigate and explore; to learn through trial and error.

But what if we must deal with two (or more) cultures which come into conflict? Where both are firmly entrenched through their own common histories, evolved laws, values, especially those based on religion or a political ideology? What happens then? When we look at Rome, with its Greco-Roman values and religion(s), we generally find conflict; often violent conflict. We find two competing social systems struggling for dominance. Eventually, it comes down to the one with the strongest military and best social organization which is able most successfully to impose itself on the other. Of course, it's not entirely a "one-way street". Even the weaker culture is sometimes able to imprint itself on the more dominant culture, especially if its stronger than the other in that area (certain medical practices or engineering techniques for instance).

The Celts were, to varying degrees, able to withstand the Roman legions, and thus avoid complete assimilation. The Germanic tribes were much more successful since they were militarily superior to their Celtic cousins as well as made better use of natural barriers. Eventually, Rome began to adopt and adapt to other cultures, languages, and even religions in the name of multiculturalism, even though many had little or no skills which could benefit the Empire; many didn't even bother to learn the language. However, everyone followed the same Roman laws and paid homage to the dominance of the Roman State, at least for a time. But in time, even that failed and Roman collapsed into a series of petty kingdoms, which rose and fell in relation to their own interactions with other cultures. China suffered a similar fate, despite a relatively homogenous population.

However, religion, is often see as a unifying factor, which it is; at least except for the religions it's seeking to replace. It's not uncommon to see the new religion replace the old religion by adopting some of the more popular traditions of the previous religion, including sacred sites. In England for instance, the Christian missionaries would often take over a sacred pagan site by dedicating it to a certain religious figure or "saint" (especially if the "saint" is a native to the region) and/or rededicate it to a specific "miracle" similar to, but slightly different, from the previous religion.

Also, another form of eradication of the previous religion is by converting their gods into sometime to be feared or made fun of. For instances, fairies and sprites, and gnomes became "demons". Snakes, once seen as symbols of power and knowledge, were now reinterpreted as harbingers of evil, like black cats or ravens were. Some are ridiculed, or simply made to be forgotten. The Celtic god of the hunt, Cernunnos, also known as the "horned god" which represented the male aspect of nature, became the prototype of the "devil" or Satan. The more dominate female aspect of nature, such as "The Great Mother", Isis or Hera, was now viewed as evil and twisted; something designed to trick or corrupt Man. Meanwhile, other popular gods and goddesses were renamed and remade as a "saint" or a venerated individual of the new religion such as the Celtic goddess "Brigantia" who became the Christian "Saint Brigit".

So, while religion can be a unifying factor, it can--and usually is---used as a tool of conquest. A more direct form of conquest is, of course, political ideology. Political ideology is pretty straight forward. It's a system of ideas, both theoretical and practical (if based on historical precedence) designed to create a form of societal governance. Out of this, laws to guide (or rule) society are created. These laws tend to evolve out of common practice or traditions and common values (which are, themselves, are strongly influenced by religion or prominent philosophies). Naturally, the dictates of unfolding events and the Will of the King or ruling elite, has a big influence as well.

What happens when a society, which has had time to incorporate a single religion into not just its government (thus becoming a theocracy), but also throughout every aspect of its society into one where the lives of ordinary people are solely governed by the dictates of its religious and political leaders? Historically, we often find that society stagnate. They can evolve and develop as one would expect of a society because of their strict religious dictates. Now, that's not to say they remain frozen in place. They do develop along certain, often very restricted lines so long as the authority of their religion is never brought into question.

That's the cardinal rule which can never be violated under any circumstances. One bright spot is that despite the monolithic structure of a religion, there are always variations within its structure; however, these are usually well defined distinctions. So, while one sect may not be as strict or repressive in one area, that isn't to say it isn't as or more repressive or strict in other areas. It also doesn't keep one sect from attempting to impose its interpretation on the other either. This brings us to the most pressing and relevant question.

What happens when two entirely different cultures, with wholly unique religions, traditions, values, and political ideologies come into contact? Let's look at the West. As a whole, the West tends to be very independent oriented; the individuality of the individual is paramount. It tends to be open when it comes to expressing new ideas or even values. Government is, at least in theory, democratic in that the majority decides based on the present needs of society (in some countries, this still holds true to a degree, while in others, such as the US, it's devolved into an Oligarchy where voters are given the illusion of choice by picking from pre-approved candidates who will represent the needs and wants of a small economic elite).

In terms of social values, there is little variation of the value of genders. Women and men are basically treated the same. Females have equal access to education and opportunities to succeed on their own, as well as hold any position they desire. The same goes for those who step outside traditional gender roles (ie: the LGBTQ communities). This is also true of races. Despite the recently manufactured "racial crisis" in America, anyone who applies themselves can succeed, but equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Much of that depends on the individual themselves, irrespective of their race or gender.

When it comes to religion, the West is highly diverse. At its core, the West has been Christian since roughly the 10th century. At one time, it was nearly unified in that belief, being either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox until the Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution or Reformation in the 16th Century (and the subsequent Counter Reformation by the Catholic Church) which spread throughout Europe.

Nevertheless, Christianity has been the dominant religion of the West. Judaism has also had a strong presence in the West, beginning with the ancient Romans (most were teachers, slaves, or traders). Of course, Jews were never entirely accepted by Christianity despite its claim of common roots in Judaism. In more recent years, we've seen a decline in organized religion and a rise in more secular beliefs (or in no religious beliefs at all), as well as alternative beliefs. In past centuries, such beliefs were as good way to get tortured, hanged, or burnt at the stake by religious/state authorities. However, it has been the expanse of democratic beliefs; the sovereignty of the individuals, which has made this possible.

Now, can you imagine what would happen with this society comes into contact with another which holds that the state, not the individual, is superior; where gender differences are seen as absolute and any variations (such as education or having a profession, especially one of authority) are ruthlessly enforced or those who cross traditional gender lines are simply beaten, raped, murdered or disfigured out of hand for violating religious laws? What happens when the very notion of democracy and rule of the people by and for the people is seen as abhorrent and in direct conflict with the accepted religious laws? Even basic notions of free expression or speech are largely forbidden; where questioning religious or political authority could be fatal.

What about the notion that female children can "marry" men three or four times their age or that small boys are allowed to be raped? Even females, regardless of their age, may be attacked or raped if out alone or even in pairs, unless they are accompanied by a male relative? How do you feel about being attacked, raped, or beaten if you aren't properly dressed as dictated by someone else's religious laws? How do you feel about having no pets? What about not being allowed to drive or vote? How about watch movies in public, dancing or go clubbing?

How do you feel about slavery? What would you say to a society which, based on its religion, says anyone not of their religion may be stripped of everything and sold into slavery...or murdered indiscriminately? Your only possible alternative would be to pay a steep tax. What would you say if you were told you have very few personal, or even basic, rights because of your gender or religious beliefs? What about demanding that your religion must not "interfere" with theirs, or simply demanding that you not smoke, drink, or eat pork products---or even that none of these can even be advertised? Now, how would you feel if this same society requires you to follow their religious/societal dictates regardless of your personal beliefs?

What do you think the outcome would be if these two vastly differing societies came in close contact with each other? Which of the two would ultimately dominate the other and enforce its will on the other? Well, that's the situation Europe now finds itself in, and that may soon be the situation that the US, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, and Australia may find itself in. The notion of opening one's home to strangers in trouble is an old one; a compassionate one. However, how does handle that same situation when you're inviting individuals into your home who intend on seizing your home and all its possessions; even demanding that you leave?

Historically, differing cultures have rarely coexisted in peace, at least for long. One of two things usually happen. The first is that the host country, under the naive guise of multiculturalism, is fractured; balkanized or divided internally with the gulf becoming wider and deeper until the nation effectively stops being one. At that point, there is usually a Civil War or revolution to decide the country's fate. Sometimes these divisions are based on mythological claims of empire, but like all wars, are often violent and affects everyone, but especially more so if religion is a factor since one is fighting--- murdering and dying---for their god. Obviously, there can be no compromise. That's where we now stand in the West. The only real question is who will dominate; who will be vanquished and who will conquer?