Every ethnic group except whites bloc-votes for the Democrats. Coincidentally, the Democrats have brought in another 30 to 40 million nonwhite immigrants in the last few decades. It doesn’t help that white voters can’t agree on what constitutes an acceptable candidate. In 2012, working-class whites sat out the election, rather than vote for the out-of-touch rich guy they saw in Mitt Romney. This year, the out-of-touch rich guys say they’ll vote for Hillary because Trump is tacky and gross.
The sad irony is that the only people who will be better off in our new country are mostly white plutocrats — the top .01 percent. The rest of us will be their servants. The people who will be worse off are everybody else — the working class, the middle class (who will soon be working class) and, most of all, women, minorities, children, the elderly, the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.
Look to Mexico for your future — or any Third World country. Or to Univision’s Jorge Ramos. The ruling class in Mexico is composed of European-looking, white descendants of Spanish conquistadors who raped the native population, giving them only their Spanish names in return. (British settlers in America brought women with them.)
Explaining Latino culture’s acceptance of incest and child rape, criminal justice researcher Shana Maier writes in a book about rape that “the male is the head of the household, and women are subordinate to men. … Hispanics and Latinos are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to blame the victim. The victim, not the perpetrator, is blamed for bringing dishonor to the family.”
One American detective said that, today, police are being taught to keep an “open mind” about child rape because “it’s a cultural thing.”
When it comes to multiculturalism, you can’t say, We love the empanadas — but we don’t want 40-year-old men raping their nieces. This isn’t an a la carte menu. We get ALL the attributes of the cultures we’re importing.
As described in excruciating detail in Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, our media already have a totally “open mind” about incest and child rape — and murder! — when it’s committed by immigrants.
Thus, for example, where I would have chosen the headline: “Illegal Alien Convicted of Incest, Child Rape,” The Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press went with the less catchy: “Man guilty in case of human smuggling.”
And where I would have used the headline, “Illegal Alien Repeatedly Raped 14-year-old Girl at Job Site,” The Commercial Dispatch in Columbus, Mississippi, went with the more subtle, “Columbus resident charged with molestation.”
Immigrant women arrive in America, thrilled to have escaped cultures where rape, incest and spousal murder are acceptable, only to discover that those crimes are perfectly acceptable in this country, too — provided the perpetrator is from the very culture they fled.
In 1989, Brooklyn judge Edward Pincus sentenced a Chinese immigrant to probation for a premeditated murder of his wife, on the grounds that the murder flowed from “traditional Chinese values about adultery and loss of manhood.” The female head of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Margaret Fung, applauded the ruling.
Somewhat amazingly, newspapers are more likely to report black crime than immigrant crime. (Anything to keep the Third World immigration flowing!)
In 2013, a 13-year-old girl was gang-raped by about a dozen illegal aliens, who cheered and videoed the attack. When the news first broke, Shaneequa Jupiter, who lived with her children in the apartment building where the gang rape occurred, complained that neither the police nor apartment security had warned residents about the danger. (That could reflect poorly on illegal immigrants!)
Even if Shaneequa had scoured the headlines, she would have been on the lookout for “Austin men.” Or “Two.”
Compare these headlines about the same brutal sexual attack: “Two held in attack on child” — Austin American-Statesman (Texas), July 19, 2013
“Two Mexicans placed on immigration detainers as third man is arrested over five-day gang rape hell of teenage runaway during which she smoked crack” — Daily Mail Online, July 24, 2013
Needless to say, The New York Times did not cover the Mexican illegal alien gang rape at all.
By contrast, the Times, and every major American news outlet, extensively covered another gang rape — of a girl about the same age, at about the same time, in about the same place. The second case only was “rape” because of the girl’s young age — she was 11. But she was an enthusiastic participant, sneaking out of her house at night to meet the men for sex.
Those rapes, just a few years earlier, got a full-court press. The defendants were African-American. The victim was Mexican.
That time, there were articles in the Huffington Post, GQ, Slate, Salon and Mother Jones. It even made The New York Times, despite no connection to a college fraternity or lacrosse team.
Similarly, within a few months of one another in 2013, two men were arrested in separate child rape cases in Decatur, Alabama, for assaults on 9-year-old girls. One suspect was African-American, the other was a Hispanic immigrant. Only one made the newspaper. Guess which one?
When excitable Muslims raped American reporter Lara Logan in Tahrir Square (another one of Hillary’s foreign policy successes!), journalists immediately set to work to find the shortest line from the Muslim rapists to white American men.
Conclusion: The real problem was the female reporters’ American bosses and colleagues. (Definitely not Islam!)
Sampling of New York Times commentary on Logan’s rape:
— “Why We Need Women in War Zones” (“I would never tell my bosses for fear that they might keep me at home the next time something major happened. … This attack also had nothing to do with Islam.”)
— “Reporting While Female” (“Women reporters face another set of challenges. We are often harassed in ways that male colleagues are not. … In my experience, Muslim countries were not the worst places for sexual harassment.”)
Perhaps American men could do better, but, as American women may soon discover: They never had it so good.
Manifestly, the purpose of our immigration policies is not to help Americans — or the immigrants who wanted to live in a place like America. They are designed to funnel welfare-dependent voters to the Democrats and cheap labor to the rich. (The Chinese immigrant who got probation for murdering his wife, for example, came to America based on his specialized skill of being a dishwasher.)
Our country will be Zimbabwe, but — if all goes according to the Democrats’ plan — they’ll get to be Mugabe!
That’s Hillary’s dream. If she wins, Joe Sobran’s parody of the typical New York Times headline (about anything) will come true: “Women and Minorities Hit Hardest.”
Given our military’s tradition of defending religious liberty from attack, it is disappointing to see President Barack Obama threaten to veto the military’s main authorization bill if it contains protections for religious freedom.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual bill that sets policies and budgets for our nation’s fighting forces and is currently being negotiated by both houses of Congress in conference before a final vote.
Included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act is an amendment offered by Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., that applies decades-old religious exemptions from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) to federal grants and contracts.
The Russell Amendment is sound policy that will prevent the administration from stripping contracts and grants from faith-based social service providers whose internal staffing policies reflect their faith.
Jewish day schools and Catholic adoption centers, for example, are not liable under Title VII for being authentically Jewish or Catholic, and their staffing policies shouldn’t disqualify them from federal grants and contracts either.
But Obama’s veto threat is actually the strongest proof of why the Russell Amendment is needed. It shows that the president wants absolute freedom to discriminate against religious social service providers that interact with the government—all because many religious organizations won’t endorse the LGBT cause. Congress should say no to the president’s blatant attack on religious diversity.
Undermining Religious Liberty
For decades, the left has attempted to raise sexual orientation and gender identity to special protected status through Congress. Seeing little success using the democratic process, the Obama administration has instead turned to issuing various edicts that misinterpret existing civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
On July 21, 2014, Obama issued an executive order that unilaterally elevated sexual orientation and gender identity to special status for purposes of federal contracts.
As our colleague Ryan T. Anderson pointed out at the time, the order “disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality. All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues.”
The executive order left in place the Title VII religious staffing exemption, and the Russell Amendment merely reaffirms this protection while clarifying that religious organizations have a right to employ people committed to authentically living in accordance with their faith tenets. In short, religious organizations are free to be religious organizations.
But Obama would interpret existing religious protections narrowly in order to make religious groups bend to the LGBT agenda. As seen in the administration’s education and health care mandates on gender identity, in practice, this means requiring employee bathrooms and showers meant for women be opened to biological men who self-identify as female regardless of people’s religious beliefs on the matter. The administration’s proven lack of respect for religious freedom when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity policies is more than enough reason to keep the Russell Amendment.
Reaffirming Long-Standing Policy Is Apparently Unacceptable
Despite the Russell Amendment’s straightforwardness and precedent, 42 Senate Democrats have written to the Senate Armed Services Committee asking that the Russell Amendment be stripped from final National Defense Authorization Act language during conference negotiations.
The letter states that prospective employees should not be “disqualified from a taxpayer-funded job based on an individual’s religions.” Except that’s not how federal contracts typically work. Existing organizations bid for contracts to produce services or products based on their ability to deliver them, not to provide somebody “a taxpayer-funded job.”
The programs at issue are designed to help the needy in the most effective and efficient way possible, and faith-based organizations have proven that they are often the very best at providing these social services precisely because of their faith-based character.
But moreover, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already specifically protects religious organizations’ ability to hire based on religion, so the burden is on the objectors to the Russell Amendment to prove why a system that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and has served religious pluralism well for decades should now be stripped away when it comes to federal contracts.
Will Congress Hold the Line?
The Russell Amendment was included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act and passed by a comfortable margin (277 to 147) because it reflects the best of our traditions without taking away anything from anyone. Congress should not let the president’s veto threat get in the way of passing sound policy, and the Russell Amendment is just that—a commonsense continuation of policy that has served our diverse society well since 1964.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Roger Severino is the director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.
Melanie Israel/ @Melanie_Lea; Melanie Israel is a research associate for the DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.