Voting with your feet – redux

Libertarian Commentary #16-10F By Nathan Barton

Voting with your feet, Redux – Europe, America, and Islam

Events in Europe mean more and more people are voting with their feet as well. And the arrogance of their national and European Tranzi leaders grows more and more amazing and intolerable by the day. Even as they steal more and more liberty from their own citizens, they pretend to give it to Muslim “refugees” and others.

But even as things get bad, these events make it clear that the solution IS liberty: not just the liberty to cross borders (just not on the dime of someone forced to pay), but the liberty to defend yourself against the inevitable, the scum who seek to take advantage of good-hearted people. And the liberty to say, “not in MY living room or yard,” and “Not MY daughter, not MY son, not MY wife” is to be sacrificed. And certainly not taking away the liberty for each of us to worship God (or not) as long as we neither impose it on others nor use it as an excuse to rob, beat, rape, abuse, or kill others. Until we can apply that lesson to our daily lives and society, things will get worse and worse, and more and more people are voting with their feet.

Immigration from Europe to North America and Latin America and Oceania is up, and that migration is not just Muslim. Why?

Things are getting bad in Sweden. As World Net Daily reports, the rape crisis in Sweden is boiling over, even while government and the media stay silent about it. More and more of the tens of thousands of ‘refugees’ from wartorn Syria, Afghanistan, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere are involved in more and more aggression against women and children. The article actually goes out and ties the behavior of these migrants in Sweden’s cities and towns to their background in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Keep in mind, supposedly – and often truly – these people are fleeing Mesopotamia, the Hindu Kish, Syria, Egypt, Libya, etc. because of the evil conditions caused by their governments, their religions, and their societies.

For instance, the manager of a large hotel in Kabul, told an investigator how an average Afghan man sees sexual attacks on women: “What the Afghans are doing is not wrong in Afghanistan, so your rules are completely alien to them. Women stay at home in Afghanistan, and if they need to go out they are always accompanied by a man. If you want to stop Afghans from molesting Swedish girls, you need to be tough on them. Making them take classes on equality and how to treat women is pointless. The first time they behave badly, they should be given a warning, and the second time you should deport them from Sweden.” But of course, the Swedes aren’t doing this: lo, the poor migrants! So when Swedish women (and children, both male and female) are groped and sometimes raped, they are told to “stay out of these areas” and “dress more conservatively” and “don’t offend the attackers.” Instead of arming themselves and ensuring that attacks are responded to quickly and effectively, they depend on old habits and cry for police or other government help, which of course cannot and do not prevent such things, much less ensure that restitution is done and future assaults are prevented.

But an important point here is that these men bring their attitudes with them, same beliefs and practices that made the misery of their lives back in their homelands so bad.

The assaults by migrant men on women have not been isolated to Sweden. Germany, Austria, Finland and France have become just as dangerous for women, boys and girls. Just last month, the story of a 10-year-old boy raped by an Iraqi “refugee” in a public swimming pool in Vienna sparked outrage among Austrians. The suspect, who now awaits trial, arrived from Iraq in Austria in September and cited “sexual emergency” as the motive for his alleged crime. Interesting defense. I don’t know how the Nazgul will take that (I don’t think Austria uses juries). Honestly, I am sorry to see that the Iraqi “refugee” even made it to a police station or jail to be booked and charged. But Austria, like the rest of Europe, is a far cry from its old historical self. Remember that it was at the “Gates of Vienna” that the LAST major invasion of Europe by Muslims was defeated, in 1653, as I recall, nearly 400 years ago. Will Austria remain free of the Caliphate for a full 400 years? (I should add that at the time this invasion (by the Ottomans, aka the Turks) was NOT in response to the Crusades of 400 or more years before that) but simply explained as the command of Allah to conquer the infidels. It is also germane, I think, to note that although Europe was in the middle of the hideous wars of the Reformation, in which two sides (both wrongly claiming to be Christian) were busy killing each other as they attempted to impose their religion on each other) that the sides responded together to go and defend Europe from the Turks.)

Keep in mind that many fled to America (well, North America) at this time to escape that same evil, and while some (certain Puritans come to mind) sought to continue the same evil practices here, most wanted to just be free to live their own lives. This escape from Europe and later from Africa and Asia and Latin America continued for centuries. But Jews fleeing the pogroms of Russia and Assyrians fleeing the dhimmitude of Mesopotamia didn’t try to set up their own little religious dictatorships here. And those fleeing the rapacious British rule of Ireland or the abuses of Louis XVI’s France didn’t try to recreate those tyrannies here, just with them on top. Not even 1% or 5% of them. And those few who did, even in Latin America, were quickly brought down by their own comrades.

But we refuse to learn, not just from history, but from current events. There are more than a billion Muslims. Even if just 1% of them are fanatic enough about following Allah and their Prophet (peanut butter und honig) to the extent that they are willing to commit acts of terror, if just 5% of them are following the words of the Koran and Haditha and Shari’a law and treat women and girls like trash (and boys, as well), that is more than 10 million jihadists and 50 million would-be rapists, wife-beaters, child-molesters and the like. And I am told by many people that the percentages are much, much higher.

How do we refuse to learn? Listen to the appeal of the famous Tranzi movie celebrity, George Clooney. He and his buddies, according to World Net Daily, are pushing DC to import more Muslims into the Fifty States. Open the borders more to them; screen them less, accept them as refugees and people who desire more freedom and liberty. We know that not all Muslims are like those described above. Just as we know that all cops are not slavering gun-waving, broomstick-jamming thugs like those who have killed, beaten, and raped 3 or more Americans a day for the last several years. We don’t have to meet every Muslim with a drawn sword and a bag of quick-lime. We can rather screen them and decide whether or not we risk being murdered (or raped) by our house guest.

Mama’s Note: Who is this “we” that would do that screening? Trusting government to do so is certainly no answer to the problems. The government is not competent, nor is it interested. And there is no way of “vetting” these people by their past history. The one thing the countries of origin have that we don’t… very little surveillance or data banks of personal information. Not that such kept by any government is apt to be honest or accurate, of course. No, we must do this ourselves, as individuals and voluntary communities. Tough job, but it has to be done – and not just with muslims.

Indeed, if people like Clooney and Clinton want to see more Muslims in this country (assuming that they are going to vote for Tranzis, I guess, and continue to destabilize American cities and towns), why don’t they put up or shut up? Let them sponsor these poor souls. What do I mean by sponsor? Let these folks (and anyone else willing to) pay for these people to come, to house them and feed them and help them find jobs – personally, I mean, and NOT with tax money. And let them put up a bond for good behavior, for some extended period of time. Perhaps for a child a mere $10,000 or so for 10-15 years, for a woman of good record $25,000 for 5 to 10 years, and for a young Muslim “refugee” male of military age, $100,000 for at least a decade, to be forfeited if they decide to go out and commit an honor killing, or wander down the street with the chopped-off head of a soldier or preacher, or rape a little boy in a swimming pool. (I thought about making the sponsor also suffer the same judicial consequences, from jail time and fines to execution, but that just puts the burden back on the taxpayer.) Clooney and Clinton and Reid certainly can afford to do that; ditto for Soros and Buffett and others. But I’m sure that they would scream about how the wealthy are being abused… Hmm. Maybe they should vote with their feet?

Mama’s Note: That would be good, but I don’t know how it would be imposed except by the corrupt and mindless government. Individual associations might make this a condition of joining their communities, of course, but we don’t have that freedom just yet.

Of course, the abuse that we see is NOT of the wealthy, nor (at least by government) of Muslim refugees. Indeed, modern Muslim “refugees” are treated a whole sight better than your typical Irish, Jewish, or Polish immigrant to the Fifty States 120 years ago. And certainly better than this guy (I know, I told this story recently, but here it is again, to help make my point):

A Christian business analyst was booted from a flight from the United Kingdom to Amsterdam when his seatmate, reading on the man’s smartphone as he typed messages, apparently saw the word “prayer” and reported him to authorities as a possible security threat. The London Guardian reported that on an easyJet flight last Thursday, Opebiyi, 40, of London, was forced to give up his telephone and his password to authorities, who ordered him off the flight. So far, apparently not a single Roman Catholic bishop nor Anglican bishop has stood up for this man: certainly not anyone from Whitehall or Brussels or New York (UN HQ), as they would have if EXACTLY the same thing had happened to a Muslim and not a Christian. The “authorities” (including the airline crew and management) are not allowed to “profile” when it comes to a dark-skinned Muslim in a burka or turban, but a black-skinned man with a Bible and cross? Abuse him all you want: you’ll never hear Sean Connery or Elton John stand up and condemn HIS treatment, HIS abuse. Would It be a surprise to see Mr. Opebiyi vote with his feet?

Voting with your feet is NOT supposed to be part of a plan to make your vote for a new dictatorship – just one where YOU are on top, but even the Boers of SudAfrika and the Puritans of Massachusetts started out that way. It seems to me that those who are followers of Mohammed (peanut butter und honig) ARE doing just that. Just as did the Normans going to England and then Ireland.

Enough is enough. An invasion is an invasion. And sometimes the solution is NOT to vote with your feet, but to fight to defend yourself, your family, your faith, your community, and your land.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
This entry was posted in Commentary on the News, Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Voting with your feet – redux

  1. richard says:

    As point of clarification; my preceding comment was written prior to my reading of your entire post. At the time I had read only to the 2nd paragraph. Now that I have read the entire post I say I have little to add but that I am fond of the counterpoint as provided by mamma. And, your very last sentence is my point exactly, at least as I described in my comment to Darkwing. All in all, a very good post of which I am much appreciative.


  2. richard says:

    Darkwing, I understand. That is why I choose to make a stand. In California no less. The myriad of asinine laws in this state is enough to make one…go on a shooting spree. Well, no, not that. But as you intimate, one has to make a stand somewhere. If not here then where? So many Californians have relocated to other states. Those states now bare the burden of ever more leftist ideology. I am not so beholden to CA (it is not the land of my birth or upbringing) but I recognize the fight must be made here for it is within the hive, as it were. To pull back to the free states would only give allowance for the spread of this stupid shit. For the sake of posterity of this country I make my stand. As goes the United States of America, so does the world. This leftist BS must be contained.


    • Darkwing says:

      Prior to my retirement, in 2001, I searched dozens of countries, that I felt were OK to live in and had no luck. There is not one country in this world that will allow you to own, posses, carry a gun and if they do you must register it with the government and they give you a permit. That permit can be taken away at any time.


      • MamaLiberty says:

        “Permits” for everything. Everywhere. There is no government that does not presume the false authority to do so, since the rulers and elite actually think they own everything. It is up to the rest of us to disabuse them of that notion, wherever we are. I am not a “citizen” of any political territory or group. I am a sovereign individual. 🙂


      • Darkwing says:

        Beautifully said.


  3. richard says:

    Your ‘God (or not)’ is the chink in your armor. Yes, you use ‘liberty’ as armor, as a brand. Anyway, it is the ‘or not’ to which I address my comment. Why do I target that simple term? It is because while you signal that allowance for differing opinion or belief is acceptable you also portend a threat against that opinion which you do not agree. So, while you make an allowance it is only finite. This bespeaks of a larger tolerance which can be swayed. Not kidding, stand firmly on one principal lest one risks falling to a variety of offerings. And it would be by degrees until one finds that they have developed sympathies for their enemy.

    Make no mistake, I am absolutely, eternally opposed to the entirety of islam. Therefore, I agree with you. The exception is that I do draw a more precise line. You equivocate, I annunciate. To be utterly clear, to dismiss God is to denounce Him. Anything less is to entirely miss the point in this opposition to islam. The attacks in Paris, London, Bombay, all around the world…they are battles. The war is in the hearts. It is war you mean therefore do not dwell on the skirmishes. The war is in the hearts and will be won or lost in the hearts. Our hearts is the dwelling place of the Spirit. This is neither pedantic or ideological; this is rational. If one not accept the true nature of things then they are on the outside, always circumspect, to themselves lost, never to be trusted.


  4. Darkwing says:

    I wanted to vote with my feet and move to another but the problem was that you could not own or posses a firearm or you had to register it with the government. THere is not one country to move to.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s