Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: At a ceremony for some of the various policemen recently shot by his fellow Black Lives Matter advocates, President Barack Obama described the postapocalyptic hellscape of gun violence that is America today:

We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book…

In contrast, Donald Trump’s nomination acceptance speech was widely criticized as “dark.” … Pundits who, only days before, had been vociferously lamenting the gun crisis rushed to denounce Trump for fearmongering about crime.

After all, law and order is not supposed to be on the agenda for 2016. … You are supposed to be worrying about guns, not crime.

COMMENTS:

* Of course we can’t focus on crime – that would require acknowledgement of the fact that we have an incredibly violent subset of the population that is willing to use deadly force to resolve minor and petty disputes, and that would cast the left’s favorite class of victims in a negative light. Better to focus on the mechanism used to mete out punishment to one’s transgressors rather than ask why such a noble group of people are so quick to go to Defcon 1 over matters most people would let go.

* It’s incredible that the president would make such an absurd statement of it being easier to obtain a Glock, a higher end pistol, than a book. It’s as if he were to start babbling about UFOs on national television. The increase in homicide is a black thing but because of that they have to dance all around the subject without ever really spelling it out. Quite simply, the black population has to be sat upon by the police to keep their murder rate down. Without that they just revert back to their original state of tribalism and tribal warfare. Lighten up the police presence and they go out of control much as when power outages automatically lead to looting. It’s just the way they are and they haven’t changed much in all these years.

* David Dinkins always likes to pipe up and claim that the policies that reduced crime actually began in his administration. I forget whether he began stop-and-frisk or whether he hired Bratton and started Compstat. But he invariably writes into newspapers and points that out every time they ran a story about Giuliani cleaning up crime.

Anyway, the Dems used to use gun control like the Repubs use abortion: an issue they knew they couldn’t win in Congress or the courts, but by screaming about it could rile up the base for cash and votes.

Except now gun owners are beginning to talk about race again, thanks to the BLM movement trying to blame cops and rational people realizing it’s not that once they get the counter argument. So now the Dems screams are just making more people realize they are the Black Party.

* Murder rates over time are irrelevant unless improvements in medical care are controlled for. If you held the level of violence the same and had the medical care of 50 years ago the murder rate would be 3-4 times higher.

* Lessons of Ferguson:

If you steal some cigarillos from a store, then don’t walk around holding them openly in your hand.

If you do walk around holding them openly in your hand, then don’t walk in the middle of the street.

If a police officer tells you to stop walking in the middle of the street, then don’t punch him in the face.

If you do punch a police officer in the face, then don’t try to grab his handgun.

If you do grab his handgun, then don’t put your thumb on the barrel opening, so that a bullet wounds your thumb.

If your thumb is wounded and if you also are fat, intoxicated and wearing flip-flops, then don’t try to run away.

If you do run away, then don’t stop and turn around to face the police officer.

If you do stop and turn around, then don’t yell, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me!”

If you do yell, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me,” then don’t charge at the police officer.

If you do charge at the police officer and he shoots you in your torso, then don’t keep charging until one of the bullets hits you in the forehead.

* Obama’s statement also continues the long (racist) Leftist tradition of not considering blacks as having moral agency. “We” (implicitly whitey) put in front of (black) teens a veritable buffet of low cost Glocks (while at the same time we deprive them of access to books and computers). Forget for a moment that these are all lies and assume their truth for purposes of argument. Apparently, blacks have no role to play – once they are presented with these cheap guns they have no choice but to buy them and pop caps in their bruthas (and the occasional whitey).

Isn’t this same buffet available to the teens of Bloomfield Hills and Bethesda, only a few short miles from nearby ghettos in Detroit and DC? And don’t white teens have even more access to cash? Why are the prep school boys not shooting each other at a similar rate (or at all)?

* Let’s put aside a trifling matter such as the Second Amendment for a moment (the Constitution after all is a living document and can be reinterpreted ) and consider gun control as a practical matter.

Most of the communities that “we” have flooded with guns are also flooded with drugs. These drugs are mostly illegal. Outlawing the manufacturing, importation, possession or sale of these drugs with a variety of state and federal laws, most of which impose penalties at the felony level (i.e. long prison terms) has done little to stop their use, despite a century long “War on Drugs”.

Drugs can be produced domestically in illegal laboratories and they can be smuggled across the border. Or drugs that are intended for legitimate purposes can be diverted to illicit use. So if you put your finger in the dike, a thousand other holes spring up, driven by the pressure of the public’s demand and willingness to pay for drugs.

So while this war has not done much to actually reduce the supply of drugs to addicts (while at the same time making it difficult for people in real pain to receive appropriate medication) it has however filled our prisons and created a lucrative black market economy. Prohibiting alcohol had similar “success”.

But, Obama and the Left want us to try yet another prohibition experiment. They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

* The elites who run NYC don’t want, and have never wanted, low crime and a crackdown on Black crime that drives most crime.

This is because they are mostly transient renters. Sure Jay Z and Taylor Swift have multimillion penthouses, but most are either the Ezra Klein transient renters or various entertainment/info personalities moving from city to city. The real money is absentee — Chinese and Russian oligarchs putting money into hard -to-seize real estate. Meanwhile White Flight was a huge godsend to the creative people, who were able to live frankly degenerate lives without rebuke by a White middle class.

This is why various lower-tier celebrities are openly rooting for a return to Taxi Driver NYC — it made renting cheaper. And if crime gets too bad, they’ll just move — to DC, to London, to LA.

You IMHO are penciling in the dynamic of LA — where celebrities actually own (and often buy/sell) luxury properties and things like the attack on NCIS actress Pauly Perrette at her Hollywood Hills mansion by some homeless person creates a big city crackdown. While South Central is essentially a no-police zone.

Orwell had it right — the purpose of torture is torture, the purpose of power is power. The purpose of Gun Control is disarming Whites in rural places. Because they are the natural and eternal enemies of rich White urban liberals who make their money by hereditary government networks. After all there are plenty of means to disarm Blacks such as Stop and Frisk which the people who actually RUN NYC — Di Blasio, Al Sharpton, various Black/NuYoRican Gangs, the glitterati, the NYT, all detest. And ended. Rudy represented the revolt of the Outer Boroughs, but that’s over with demographic change and the Caribbean immavasion tidal wave.

Again, people who write for the NYT or form the lower tier infotainment/government sector, need high Black crime in NYC to keep rents low. The collision between absentee foreign oligarchs seeing their property investments drop in titanic ways vs. the US elites should be interesting. I am more and more convinced the Jefferson’s insight that property owners had a permanent interest in not degrading their nation was wise, vs. Hamilton’s nomadic urbanites with no skin in the property game. Because they move so much.

* Stirring up fake controversies by taking quotes out of context is a Leftist speciality but it doesn’t seem to work on Trump at all. But that doesn’t stop the Left from trying again and again. The NYTimes news pages no longer even pretend to be impartial.

Something you have to understand (and which the reporter surely understands but pretends not to) is that Hillary’s email server has been offline and scrubbed for a long time now. So the only way the Russians could leak the contents is if they hacked it when it was still on line. So, even taking Trump’s remarks in a serious light and not as a joke as clearly intended (according to the NYT readers, sarcasm and humor are not permitted in Presidential candidates) it’s not possible that Trump is appealing for the Russians to conduct FUTURE espionage on Hillary.

At worst, he is telling Putin to release what he already has “and he would be rewarded by the American press”. The latter is what REALLY drove the NYT into a frenzy. Traditionally, yes, juice revelations about a presidential candidate are exactly what the press wants – they would be orgasmic if someone were to leak something truly incriminating about Trump. Normally they would give their eye teeth to break a scandal – since Watergate this has been the dream of every political reporter. But, in this case, the LAST thing that they want is to be forced to print something that would torpedo Hillary’s candidacy. I would even bet that they would suddenly get ethical qualms and find some reason why they couldn’t even print these stories (but the cat would be out of the bag anyway – they no longer have the monopoly).

* He smacked the reporters around in that press conference. His instinct is to constantly attack. The debates will be very interesting. I don’t think Hillary’s AI decision tree can be programmed extensively enough to appear extemporaneous, and I suspect she’ll fall back to point and sputter mode.

PERIES: So let’s take a look at this article by Paul Krugman. Where is he going with this analysis about the Siberian candidate?

HUDSON: Well, Krugman has joined the ranks of the neocons, as well as the neoliberals, and they’re terrified that they’re losing control of the Republican Party. For the last half-century the Republican Party has been pro-Cold War, corporatist. And Trump has actually, is reversing that. Reversing the whole traditional platform. And that really worries the neocons.

Until his speech, the whole Republican Convention, every speaker had avoided dealing with economic policy issues. No one referred to the party platform, which isn’t very good. And it was mostly an attack on Hillary. Chants of “lock her up.” And Trump children, aimed to try to humanize him and make him look like a loving man.

But finally came Trump’s speech, and this was for the first time, policy was there. And he’s making a left run around Hillary. He appealed twice to Bernie Sanders supporters, and the two major policies that he outlined in the speech broke radically from the Republican traditional right-wing stance. And that is called destroying the party by the right wing, and Trump said he’s not destroying the party, he’s building it up and appealing to labor, and appealing to the rational interest that otherwise had been backing Bernie Sanders.

So in terms of national security, he wanted to roll back NATO spending. And he made it clear, roll back military spending. We can spend it on infrastructure, we can spend it on employing American labor. And in the speech, he said, look, we don’t need foreign military bases and foreign spending to defend our allies. We can defend them from the United States, because in today’s world, the only kind of war we’re going to have is atomic war. Nobody’s going to invade another country. We’re not going to send American troops to invade Russia, if it were to attack. So nobody’s even talking about that. So let’s be realistic.

Well, being realistic has driven other people crazy. Not only did Krugman say that Trump would, quote, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy at the expense of America’s allies, and he’s referring to the Ukraine, basically, and it’s at–he’s become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. But also, at the Washington Post you had Anne Applebaum call him explicitly the Manchurian candidate, referring to the 1962 movie, and rejecting the neocon craziness. This has just driven them nutty because they’re worried of losing the Republican Party under Trump.

In economic policy, Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the TTIP trade and corporate power grab [inaud.] with Europe to block public regulation. And this was also a major plank of Bernie Sanders’ campaign against Hillary, which Trump knows. The corporatist wings of both the Republican and the Democratic Parties fear that Trump’s opposition to NAFTA and TPP will lead the Republicans not to push through in the lame duck session after November. The whole plan has been that once the election’s over, Obama will then get all the Republicans together and will pass the Republican platform that he’s been pushing for the last eight years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement with Europe, and the other neoliberal policies.

And now that Trump is trying to rebuild the Republican Party, all of that is threatened. And so on the Republican side of the New York Times page you had David Brooks writing “The death of the Republican Party.” So what Trump calls the rebirth of the Republican Party, it means the death of the reactionary, conservative, corporatist, anti-labor Republican Party.

And when he wrote this, quote, Trump is decimating the things Republicans stood for: NATO, entitlement reform, in other words winding back Social Security, and support of the corporatist Trans-Pacific Partnership. So it’s almost hilarious to see what happens. And Trump also has reversed the traditional Republican fiscal responsibility austerity policy, that not a word about balanced budgets anymore. And he said he was going to run at policy to employ American labor and put it back to work on infrastructure. Again, he’s made a left runaround Hillary. He says he wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, whereas the Clintons were the people that got rid of it.

And this may be for show, simply to brand Hillary as Wall Street’s candidate. But it also seems to actually be an attack on Wall Street. And Trump’s genius was to turn around all the attacks on him as being a shady businessman. He said, look, nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. Now, what that means, basically, as a businessman, he knows the fine print by which they’ve been screwing the people. So only someone like him knows how to fight against Wall Street. After all, he’s been screwing the Wall Street banks for years [inaud.]. And he can now fight for the population fighting against Wall Street, just as he’s been able to stiff the banks.

Dennis Prager writes: One of the many remarkable traits of the progressives is their lack of self-awareness.
This trait was on display last week in the media and Democratic Party’s characterization of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech — and the entire Republican National Convention — as “dark.”
For the left to dismiss other Americans as having a dark view of America is preposterous.
Because no one — not Trump, not the Republican Party, not any conservative — has nearly as dark a view of America as does the left.
Across the board — from the universities to the media to the Democratic Party — the left, around the world and in America, has an unremittingly dark view of the United States.
Here’s a brief glimpse.
–Racism “is part of our (American) DNA,” President Barack Obama said in 2015. Is there anything Trump said in his acceptance speech that is as dark about America as that?
–On July Fourth weekend, Vox published a long column arguing “3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.”
–The most widely read historian in American high schools and colleges, the late left-wing professor Howard Zinn, was asked (by me) whether he thought the United States had done more good or more bad in the world. “Probably more bad than good,” he answered.
–The left regularly characterizes the United States as a sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted country.
–Our wars are wars for imperialist expansion, driven by material greed.
CARTOONS | Steve Breen
View Cartoon
–The top 1 percent relentlessly exploits the other 99 percent.
–America is rigged against blacks, Hispanics and the 99 percent.
–Cops kill unarmed blacks proportionately more than they kill unarmed whites because so many cops are racist.
–About 1 in 5 female college students are sexually assaulted on campus.
Is there anything in Trump’s speech that can match any of those left-wing views of the United States for “darkness”?
Moreover, every one of those leftist critiques of America is false.
Nevertheless, we are in a dark time in America. In fact, Trump didn’t make the case for America’s darkness nearly effectively enough.
–Our universities — outside of the natural sciences — are being destroyed as learning institutions. They close minds, censor speech and indoctrinate rather than educate.
–Blacks have more anger toward whites and America than at any time since the civil rights era.
–American students are learning less while being indoctrinated more. They graduate high school barely able to write a coherent essay with proper sentence structure, grammar and spelling. But they know all about the existential threat allegedly posed by fossil fuels.
–According to a recent Gallup Poll, fewer young Americans than at any time since polling began are proud to be Americans.
–A greater percentage of Americans are dependent upon government for their income and even for food than at any time in American history.
–The American national debt is the highest it has ever been. And it is increasing at a rate that can only lead to an economic implosion.
–A smaller percentage of Americans are married than at any time in American history.
–Americans are having fewer children than ever.
–Fewer businesses in proportion to the general population are being started than ever before.
–Sectors of major American cities are essentially killing zones.
–Fewer Americans than ever before believe in God, go to church or affirm Judeo-Christian values, the basic moral code of America’s founding and of Western civilization.
–Only 2 in 10 black children are born to a married mother.
Is that dark enough?
And the list is only a partial one.
Moreover, every one of those dark facts is the result of left-wing policies, left-wing politicians, left-wing writers, left-wing professors and the left-wing party, the Democratic Party.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Evidently, what Trump had to say in his big speech was pretty persuasive, if I say so myself.

* It is interesting watching all the framing and narrative wrangling going on.

Google news seems to be in the tank for Hillary.

* Mr. Trump’s speech nailed the root causes of our worst woes.

Singlehandedly, Mr. Trump obliterated the Overton Window. He’s the Father of “a new birth of freedom.”

Mr. Trump is the only public figure in the United States that has had and shown the testicular fortitude to say what must be said, and to propose to do what must be done to save our country – to save, indeed, Western Civilization.

With each passing day my admiration for Mr. Trump grows. In his own way he may well prove to be our Charles Martel.

Martel himself was not perfect, and neither is Trump. But in History they are both the right man at the right moment.

* Content matters and what Trump had to offer white blue collars and middle-class voters in his is quite substantial.

In fact it hasn’t been done by GOP politicos, well since ever. Previous GOP pols would simply tell the helots that we need to take it in the ass via austerity measures to help corporations globalize and send our jobs overseas in the name of progress and profit and that we could forget about retiring and have to work until we died. Of course they’d couch it in “fiscal conservative” talk that would go over like a lead balloon and have no real appeal.

Then the GOP bosses would whine why no one except the rich liked their agenda. Usually with reporters and journalists who themselves who were worth millions.

Funny thing, most of those issues Trump talked up used to be Democratic ones until the Clinton’s came along and kicked them out of the party in favor of K Street and globalist interests.

* Nate Silver’s model says Trump has a 40% chance of winning. His model adds a little to Trump’s polling to correct for Dem bias and subtracts temporarily a little more to account for convention bounce.

His “now-cast” says if the election were held today it would be a replay of 2000: Hillary narrowly wins the popular vote while Florida puts Trump over the top, both by less than 1%.

It isn’t a perfect replay of 2000 however. This looks like it will be the first election since the Nixon realignment almost 50 years ago in which Pennsylvania votes more Republican than Virginia. And this was before Tim Kaine was Veeped. Ohio is also moving to the right. It was the tipping point state in 2004 that put Bush over the top, and ultra-close in 2000 as well. Mitt Romney was a WWC disaster, so this delayed the shift. It looks like rather than a pure swing state, it is a slightly lean-Trump state. Colorado is going the other way, Trump is polling poorly there and its hispanic and SWPL population is growing fast.

Besides being the states shifting to the left the fastest, Virginia and Colorado share something else in common. In both states Democrats are overperforming in statewide races because they carefully select and unite behind candidates, the result of being the weaker party for so long. The GOP base in these states, by contrast, has not accepted the need to nominate less conservative candidates and avoid divisive primaries, resulting in Alabama-style Republican candidates like Ken Buck and the Ken Cuccinelli who keep losing winnable races

* Trump’s gains in the battleground counties in Ohio and Pennsylvania were especially impressive. I have noted before that, if Trump manages to win the same states Romney won in 2012 (total 206 EVs), all he needs to do is win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan to get to 289 EVs, well above the 270 needed to win. Even without Michigan’s 16 EVs, he gets 273, enough to eke out a victory. So, despite what the MSM have been saying all along, it does not take much to make Trump President. That completely disregards many other states where Trump is likely to do well.

* Historically the GOP was the protectionist party, and the Democrats the opposite. That changed after 1932.

If I recall correctly, Romney ran many ads labeling China a currency manipulator in my home state of Ohio. The left-wing media claimed he was stoking a trade war.

In the aftermath, I remember reading that some observers thought Asian voters took criticism of China as racist, I quite vividly remember Indian writers assailing the GOP for mentioning Christianity in the most mundane context. (Ignoring the whole point of their homeland’s BJP)

Romney’s China schtick wore out after he lied over and over about the Toledo Jeep factory being shut down.

* I know about Schmidt’s work to get Obama reelected and have read about his involvent in the hillary campaign.

I also know that Google visited the white house more than any other company and was one of the top lobbyists.

I’m now wondering why I even thought they would pretend to hide their bias on their news site.

My own naivety amazes me sometimes.

* I can’t count the number of times over the past year that I’ve heard writers and online commentators say things like:

“Hip-hop artists from Killah D to the Smoove Dogs have name-checked Trump over 100 times!”

and

“NBA draft prospect Vontavious Buckthorn just tweeted out a pro-Trump message!”

Most of these people don’t even have a fixed address that won’t change between now and November, much less are actually registered to vote, much less intend to actually go vote for Trump.

The biggest single group of black voters is middle-aged and older church ladies. After them, you have groups such as welfare cases (low rates of voter registration, but they nake up for it with volume), lower-middle-class retail workers, and fake-revolutionary black college students. After all them, you have blacks who might consider voting Republican. And even they, as you’ve noted, aren’t the type to fall for Trump.

The average poor but “cool” black guy on the street corner, and the thugged out athletes and musicians he admires, are simply not a factor in national elections.

* First, he is not in the pocket of the Russians. Because of his self-financing campaign he isn’t in the pocket of anyone. Well, I take that back. It appears he now is in the pocket of one group based upon some of his recent statements. But I think he had to do it if he wanted a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.

Second, many social conservatives seem to have a stuck vision of Russia as being one in the same with the old, atheistic USSR. If these folks saw that the Russian government was trying to reestablish Christianity and was building Churches, their opinions might change. Though they might fail in their attempt to reestablish the Church, I think most social conservatives would be floored that the Russian government is even trying it.

Most of us who lived through the Cold War believed that the USA was the leader of a moral, Christian West and the Soviets were the godless communists. To see how the USA is rapidly becoming anything but Christian, and how the Russians are trying to promote it is shocking. But the media won’t promote this view. As a result most Americans and social conservatives still probably believe the Russians are the godless commies of yore. It is similar to how most Americans were led to believe Saddam was behind 9-11 right up to the start of the Iraq War.

* One of the interesting things about the heroic figures in the Old and New Testament is how just about all of them were extremely flawed in one way or another – with one major exception, Christ, of course. Muslims, for instance, cannot comprehend that Noah was a drunk and was molested by his two nieces while he was passed out, david had another man killed in battle to take his wife he lusted after, Paul once gleefully sent christians to their death for fun, or Samson hung out with a prostitute who convinced him to do the main thing he was instructed to never do: cut off his hair and remove all of his power.

Christians understand that everyone is flawed, and often God has acted through some very flawed men to change the world for the better. We may be witnessing a modern day Samson with the way trump has come out of nowhere to champion causes that we all thought were doomed, has done it without fear or backing down, and has been slaying Goliaths left and right much to the shock of pretty much everyone.

* I’ve particularly enjoyed NPR coverage of the Democrat Convention where one reporter was nearly drowned out by catcalls coming from the floor as she suggested the Democrat Convention showed much less evidence of party divisions than the Republican.

* Bill Clinton was responsible for the drop in crime as much as the crowing rooster is responsible for the sun rising every day. It is well documented that the crime rate peaked and started declining dramatically in 1990 not only in NYC but across the country for reasons that are still inexplicable, although many explanations have been advanced. Clinton did not become President until January 20, 1993, and he had no responsibility for crime on the street. Clinton did propose his “Cops on the Street” legislation, which wasn’t enacted until 1994 and didn’t result in new cops on the street until 1995. The crime rate, in the meantime, continued to drop dramatically. I have debunked the same claim made by Rudy Giuliani, who didn’t become mayor until January 1994, but at least he set the tone for NYC by banning the squeegee guys and taking a tough attitude toward criminals and changing the methods of policing, thus changing the perception of the public. A good use of the bully pulpit, at the very least, so I am willing to give Giuliani some credit for the decline in crime. His policies were continued by Mayor Bloomberg during his three terms in office, and the crime rate continued to decline to the point where it is probably the lowest among big cities in the U.S. and historically low for NYC.

You allude to the “Clintons” reducing crime. Exactly what was Hillary’s contribution as First Lady to reducing crime in the 90′s? This is the same woman who couldn’t find billing records of the Rose Law Firm for two years, although they were found hiding in her bedroom at the White House. I wonder how they made their way from Little Rock to Washington.

BTW the formal name for the logical fallacy involving Bill Clinton and the reduction in crime is post hoc ergo propter hoc. The same fallacy applies to the claims that Bill Clinton was responsible for the economic recovery of the 90′s. That ignores the indisputable fact that the economy bottomed out in March 1991 (according to the NBER, official arbiter of business cycles), nearly two years before Clinton became President on January 20, 1993. The boom of the 90′s was largely attributable to the manipulations of the Federal Reserve, which is why the boom ended in 2000 with the bursting of the internet/telecom stock market bubble. Hillary’s silly notion that her decrepit husband, showing signs of early senility, can recreate the economic boom of the 90′s is based on the falsehood that he was responsible for the 90′s boom in the first place and that he is some kind of economic wizard, which is very far from the truth. Did he take even one economics course when he was in college?

P.S.–Your notion that nothing can be done about crime until the Democrats return to power seems to overlook the dramatic increase in crime over the last two years (as documented by the Washington Post) with a Democrat in the White House, who seems relatively clueless.

* “— The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server, which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months including during trips to China and Russia and which contained Top Secret national security data, was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.”

* I see no reason to disbelieve Wikileaks and Julian Assange when they take full credit for revealing the extent to which the Clintons have corrupted the political process. Neither Wikileaks nor Assange has yet been caught out in a lie.

* Homicides dropped considerably in the 1980s before crack came along late in the decade. Homicides were dropping among older offenders for a long time as more and more of them got locked up.

But crack was kind of a black swan disaster — the perfect drug — that suddenly recruited a whole bunch of new killers out of high schools. It burned out after a few years in any one city.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* The other day PBS ran a fact-check on Donald Trump’s acceptance speech.

TRUMP: “My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian (refugees). … She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.”

THE FACTS: Trump persists in making the bogus claim that the U.S. doesn’t screen refugees. The administration both screens them and knows where they are from. The Department of Homeland Security leads the process, which involves rigorous background checks. Processing of a refugee can take 18 months to two years, and usually longer for those coming from Syria. Refugees are also subject to in-person interviews and fingerprint and other biometric screening.

For all that caution, U.S. officials acknowledge that the Islamic State group could try to place operatives among refugees. Last year, FBI Director James Comey said data about people coming from Syria may be limited, adding, “If we don’t know much about somebody, there won’t be anything in our database.”

So what is it–paragraph 1 or paragraph 2? The former makes Trump sound like a paranoid xenophobe, alarming people over nothing. The latter makes him sound like a responsible statesman, concerned about preventable evils.

* The notion that our hyper-efficient government does rigorous ANYTHING is laughable. Is this like the “rigorous” testing that drivers undergo by our crack DMV agents (or is that agents ON crack?) before they are permitted to drive on the public highways? When Homeland Security transfers the AA clowns running airport security to immigrant screening do they suddenly lose 100 lbs. and gain 30 IQ points?

How do you do a “rigorous” screening on someone from Syria – do you call ISIS up and ask to search their databases? Do you send researchers to the Hall of Records in Homs (which is probably a pile of charred ashes at this point anyway)? A lot of the “Syrian” refugees in Europe aren’t even from Syria. You show up at a refugee camp and you give them some tale of woe – I fled for my life with only the clothes on my back and I have no documents whatsoever.

But the takeaway is supposed to be “Trump = bogus” – you really aren’t supposed to read past the 1st line.

* Remember, the Left is importing vermin for the dual purpose of 1) virtue signaling that they are morally superior to non-leftist whites because they embrace the Other and 2) humiliating non-leftist whites by forcing them to endure this infestation in their own homelands. It would be hard to virtue signal from a funk hole. I think the Left will hang in there as long as they can.

My own experiences with and observations of MENAs has been overwhelmingly negative. They are arrogant and ignorant in equal measure. I’m sure they have every intention of usurping their Leftist hosts. But they have two considerations with the white populace. Dhimmitude is best practiced on living infidels and they need white expertise to keep the lights on.

I think white Europeans’ s two enemies both have good reason to keep whites alive. Then again, the Left and their pet vermin seem almost entirely impervious to reason.

Interesting times may well be end times.

* First we hang the Pope, then we rally around the Church.