Last Thursday, the New York Times reported on the Danish elections and the win by the Danish People’s Party, which came in second in votes but emerged the victor:
In an election that turned on economic uncertainty and fierce debates over immigration, Danish voters on Thursday ousted their center-left government in a clear swing to the right that unexpectedly elevated an anti-immigrant, anti-European Union party that had been on the margins.
The People’s Party is described as “anti-immigrant,” and not “anti-Muslim immigrant.” And it turns out that “none of Denmark’s many smaller parties was willing to form a government with it.” Why? Precisely because of its focus on Muslim immigration, when the Times has just told us it is an “anti-immigrant” party and not “anti-Muslim-immigrant.” Could not the Times ever bring itself to change “anti-immigrant” to “anti-Muslim immigrant” in order to make that point clear? It is true that Bulgarian and Rumanian immigrants are mentioned in passing, but it is really the Muslim immigrants whom the Danish People’s Party worries about. It is in agreement with Geert Wilders, who said that he has “no objections to other, non-Muslim immigrants.” Why won’t the Times help its readers make this distinction between those who are against all immigration, and those who are only against Muslim immigration? It is seemingly so minor, but this phrasing continues to misstate, and thereby make less palatable, what is falsely presented as a general “anti-immigrant” movement. It paints a picture that is false.
The “economic uncertainty” is the other reason given for the victory of this “far-right party.” Would it not be useful for the Times to explain that that “economic uncertainty” is not about the stock market, or employment, or levels of export, but rather about the huge expense for the Danish welfare state of supporting all those Muslim immigrants? So the phrase “economic uncertainty” does not give us a distinct second reason for the victory of the Danish People’s Party; rather, it gives what is the same reason: fear of the consequences of Muslim immigration. In short, the Danish People’s Party won its unexpected victory because of fear of Muslims — fear of the economic damage they cause, and fear of their growing presence. Is that an impossible remark for the Times’ correspondent (Melissa Eddy) to have included? And how “far-right” can a party be if it wins the second highest number of votes in Denmark, and furthermore, like Geert Wilders, wants to increase social security payments to the natives, but recognizes that Muslim arrivals are using up funds that might be used to do so? To understand how generous with immigrants Denmark is, consider the clamor over the previous Prime Minister’s suggestion that the recipients of aid should work for that aid.
Why bother with these quibbles over how the election results were explained? Well, the persistence of “far-right” is always maddening. And soon enough, another “far-right” party is going to score surprisingly well: the Front National in France. It may not win, but it has already pushed the former UMP, under Sarkozy (who renamed his party “Les Republicains”) to adopt Front National policies toward both Muslim immigration and the Muslim presence in France. And just as with the Danish People’s Party, in the case of which, according to Eddy, many who did not dare to express their support nonetheless voted for the party, readers may assume that there are reasons why the Front National — which Americans know only as a “far-right” party without knowing why it is called that, and not a single thing more about it (how many, for example, know that its current leader, Marine Le Pen, has booted out her own father and his closest associates because they were indeed “far-right”?) — is called “far right” other than that of Muslim immigration. I can’t think of a single one; I don’t think the journalists who keep using the phrase can think of one, either. It is this that distinguishes the Front National: it is the only party that has called for a total halt to Muslim immigration; this is the issue that will win it the votes of the terrified and the depressed.
In Melissa Eddy’s article, a very good article really, I stop to quibble because the failure to clearly recognize both the economic issue and that of immigration as being both connected to Muslims continues, very subtly and persistently, to convey the wrong understanding to American readers. It is only toward the very end that Muslims are mentioned. This is forgivable, as Europe is now changing so fast that even the American press will soon catch up. And then my question is: will all those Americans who fondly assure us that “Muslims in America are completely different from those in Europe” be able to explain in what way the ideology of American Muslims is so very different from that of Muslims in Europe, or at least why living in the United States acts to inhibit the power and pull of Islam on the minds of its adherents in a way that living in Europe does not? Should Americans think they have little to learn from the European experience because “our Muslims are so different” and since poverty is a “root cause” of Muslim terrorism and there is apparently no other, so we need not worry? How many of those arrested for terrorism — start with Major Nidal Hasan and Tarek Mehanna — were doing very well in this country?
How is the Danish People’s Party’s victory being viewed in Washington? Is the European turn to what we are told is the “far-right” viewed with alarm on the State Department, or now with relief? I have the uneasy feeling that in the State Department some might still take seriously the phrase “far-right” as it is ordinarily applied, and would not welcome but would rather deplore the possible victory of Marine Le Pen.
And why is the coverage in the American press of events in Europe so limited when it comes to Islam? What about the cultural effect of Islam? How is it that the big brouhaha over proposed changes in the French curriculum, pushed by a half-Muslim Minister of Education, Najat Valaud-Belkacem, which if accepted would eliminate the teaching of Latin, Greek, and German, and cater to its new Muslim population by requiring, for example, study of Islam in high school, has not been mentioned all over the American press? Is it because the French, and European, ferocity in defending their own culture, the culture of Europe, shames the Americans who keep talking about multiculturalism instead of defending the European civilization to which America is heir, in literature, language, and legal system? And if the American public were to be told that so many of these “far-right” parties want to preserve their own culture and expand social services, wouldn’t that epithet have to be put to rest? Ideally, once the “right” or “far-right” sweeps in Europe, real or mischaracterized, as it must, as it did even in famously-left Denmark, the Americans will be able to follow suit, without any complexes over such epithets. It’s a prospect to welcome.
Nonblvr says
Those folks in the photo shouldn’t have leaned so far forward. That could be enough to provoke someone to remove their heads.
Benedict says
This is welcome news, the Danish people have finally realized where their country was headed. Its time other countries realized the same. Need to send Muslim refugees to Muslim nations, The policy that Australia is presently adopting is the right one with regards to Muslim refugees. Indonesia and Malaysia being Muslim dominated should take these refugees in
Linde Barrera says
Here are my rules for people applying for public assistance in Denmark, the US, or anywhere else: 1. A husband can have only 1 wife and 3 children living with him and be on public assistance. Any husband with more than 1 wife and more than 3 children must have skills and be gainfully employed to support the other wife and other children. (Great Britain–take heed and change your laws!) 2. Public assistance is meant as a temporary measure, not a lifetime benefit. Public assistance would terminate when any family reaches 3 1/2 years. In this period while on public assistance, the husband and wife would be sent to training schools to become gainfully employed, or to learn how to start their own family business. 3. Excellent ID records and documents would be kept by the municipality giving the public assistance so fraud would be kept to a minimum. 4. No exceptions after 3 1/2 years have been reached. Family, neighbors, and spiritual places of worship would then be expected to help fill in the support gap.
Jacksonl03 says
What a sensible and logical program proposal. I applaud. Too bad it’ll never see a plurality of agreement . . . until, that is, it’s too damn late.
Poor free world.
Jaladhi says
Rule !: Stop all Muslim immigration!
Rule 2: Those who are already here -forget sharia and live like others living the country!!
Billy Corr says
The Gray Lady is not alone in this grotesque infantilism.
Even the once-revered ‘Economist’ treats its readers like idiots; Geert Wilders’ party in Holland is referred to as “anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant” instead of, more accurately, “anti-immigration and anti-Jihadist.”
The press which serves the interests of the New Globalised Elite has an agenda:
* erode national sovereignty and pride (Peter Sutherland actually spelled this out once)
* encourage the influx of cheap labor to benefit the capitalist class (at the same time that jobs are being exported to low-wage economies and automation is eroding the bargaining power of workers in the West.)
JIMJFOX says
“more accurately, “anti-immigration and anti-Jihadist.”
Did you miss the point of this article?- Wilders id against MUSLIM immigration but supports non-Muslim immigrants…
Linde Barrera says
To JimJFox- Maybe because Muslim immigration quotas have reached their maximum? In the USA, we often hear politicians say: “Social Security Benefits Need to Be Cut” or “Veterans Benefits Need to Be Cut”. How come no politician ever says “Public Assistance Benefits Need to Be Cut” ???
Jaladhi says
Leave it to the NYTimes who still continues Walter Duranty’s tradition. As usual they distance themselves from the truth to protect their dear and near Muslims!! Who would be against Muslim immigration – that is just not possible that so lovable culturally enriching people will be kept out of the country!!( sarc off) Morons!!
None says
This article is incorrect. Dansk Folkeparti is anti (more) immigration, not just anti (more) muslim immigration.
A lot of petty (and also some amount of violent) crime around Denmark is committed by non muslim Eastern European immigrants who can come in unchecked due to the EU open borders.
JIMJFOX says
That may be their PUBLIC stance but you can bet MUSLIM immigration is their real concern…
cs says
” Is it because the French, and European, ferocity in defending their own culture, the culture of Europe, shames the Americans who keep talking about multiculturalism instead of defending the European civilization to which America is heir, in literature, language, and legal system?”
In Britain we are still bowing towards Islam, and this tendency is still very strong.
Angemon says
I sincerely hope not – this is not an issue where I’d enjoy to see a “pride before the fall” scenario.
mortimer says
This is indeed a turning point for Europe. Hopefully, other Europeans will understand that their identity is being trashed by the Leftists. The result will be ethnic cleansing of all Europeans. Just look at Turkey to see the result of Islamization.
Stop Islamization in America.
Georg says
The NYT paper-of-record unfailingly editorializing the, ahem, news with their “far-right” characterizations. How often does one see “far-left”? Farness exists only on the right? Why is Saudi Arabia never characterized as such? Is Saudi Arabia left of the Front National? I see the BBC today calling the P5 + 1 “the so-called P5 + 1” as they go on to mention Iran’s “Supreme Leader”. Why not “so-called Supreme Leader”? Why not “so-called far-right Supreme Leader”? If a party is the second-most popular it shows great contempt by the elites for the will of the people to unfailingly refer to them (the party and by extension the people) first with a pejorative.
I’m sure leftist elites would snicker at the above questions/concerns, but a lot of the people aren’t amused; just see the comments sections below many articles published by mainstream media outlets, particularly in Europe. For instance, the cultural replacement going on in Europe is very, very unpopular with the people. But the government just keeps steam rolling over them, showing its troubling callousness for what is fast becoming the people’s despair. What will happen if the popular will of the people can’t be expressed through politics and resultant policy? Can most of the people be cowed all of the time? It’s both wrong and dangerous.
The NYT will not acknowledge that the hesitance Europe has with immigration is mostly with Muslim immigration; this just as the authorities and elites in Britain won’t refer to the rape epidemic occurring in Rotherham and other places as being perpetrated by Pakistani, or even Muslim, men, but by “Asians”, thus maligning the great majority of people with Asian ethnicity who have nothing to do with the atrocity. Similarly, the running over of pedestrians in Graz in what was a monstrous and brazen act perpetrated by an individual who was evidently given to Islamist supremacist influence is only characterized as that of an individual who is “disturbed”, while the shooter in Charleston is quickly branded a racist (which of course he is), but it is not mentioned that he also appears to be mentally disturbed. The Chapel Hill shootings were immediately characterized by the Administration as being resultant of the victims’ ethnicity while the Administration will not stop referring to the shootings of Jews at the kosher supermarket Hyper Cacher in Paris as “random”.
The horrors of colonialism, particularly with the oppression experienced by the native populations, is a ubiquitous topic of concern with liberals. And it is of course a serious issue. But why is it not only not a concern when it’s happening to ethnic Europeans, but encouraged? Perhaps they’d assert that with a place like Britain it’s only the chickens coming home to roost (which is frankly very offensive and preposterous), but then what of Sweden? Who has Sweden wronged so tremendously that their culture ought to be destroyed/disregarded? No liberal would take offense to the spinning wheel on the flag of India, but would see it as symbolic of their overcoming colonialism and establishing national and ethnic self-determination. But when it comes to Sweden, the same preference is suddenly taboo or even supremacist. How can this be? How do they reconcile this? It is racist for Swedes not to want their country overrun, but not racist for others to overrun it?
Ethics aside, the destruction or debilitation of Europe is an unacceptable risk to global security. Democracy is surely the least worst system, but it is not invincible. Democracy, with the wonderful freedoms it affords, is associatively vulnerable from within. It is a great privilege to live in a democracy and its birth is historically hard-won; just look at the Revolution in France, for example. Or the Civil War in the United States, with 500,000 dead when the population/Nation was still in its infancy. For large numbers of people to come in after the initial sacrifices is potentially problematic; they are not invested in the history of the country the way many are. This isn’t necessarily a problem, and often/usually it is not, but it is increasingly presenting itself as a potentially potent and incubating threat. For example, in Britain there are many Muslims who are quite obviously living in what can only be described honestly as parallel or semi-parallel societies. This is an affront to Britain’s security as well as the people’s ethnic and cultural dignity and identity. The Muslims pouring across the Mediterranean hoping against hope to get into Britain pose an enormous threat to the country, and there aren’t two ways about that. Nobody likes to see people suffering anywhere, and as humans we feel compassion for the migrants, but it is simply not their or anyone else’s right to implant themselves within the democracy of Britain; that is a privilege to be bestowed by Britons at their discretion. And this especially so as it happens at a potential pace and within an environment of benefits whereby assimilation can be something of an afterthought.
These are the concerns of many Europeans. To chastise Europeans who are anxious about unbridled immigration, and to call them names is morally reprehensible and isn’t done to any other ethnic group. What is criminally unfair is the implicit assertion throughout the realm of the Western elites that Europeans are xenophobic, bigoted/racist oppressors who must take everyone in. Consider the immigration levels to Japan. It seems easy to argue that their low immigration levels have much to do with concerns for their ethnic preservation and continuity. Where is the liberal outrage? And yet Europeans are so maligned by elites as the bigoted oppressor while the Japanese bear no such burden, despite the pertinent realities between the two being literally reversed! What of the Gulf States? With all their resources most take in very, very few Muslim refugees. What does this say? What of their oppressiveness, racism and Islamophobia?
The outrage of the left is far, far too selective and begins to exemplify that which they resist, such as inequality, bigotry and racism. The dissonance reaches its present fever pitch with their coddling of Islam. They are far from right.
Westman says
Great anaysis, Georg.
Indeed, what does it mean when no rich Arab state wants any Muslim “refugees”? And why do the refugees want Europe instead of the “Allah blessed” poorer Muslim dominated countries?
It’s simple. Islam needs the subjugation/substance of the Kufr to compensate for what it costs its adherents in productivity. Without a subsidy or oil this means a sickly economy and warring over available resources. This creates refugees and others seeking a source of subsidy and survival. The closest Kufr that provides subsidy is Europe. Muslims are not going to become Europeans, they are there to milk the Kufr until it is theirs.
The far-left multiculturalists are experimenting with their unproven notions of cultural equivalency. How reassuring it must be for common Europeans while the Elite discuss their future at VIP parties. Let them eat Islam?
Georg says
Thanks, Westman.
I promise I just finished writing a long reply regarding what you brought up but there was a glitch as it was being added and it’s too exhausting to write again haha.
To summarize what I blathered about: The Gulf States are more or less scum who have our worst interests at heart and seek to destroy our civilization. Your “Let them eat Islam” quip is exactly right. They come over here because the fruit of Islam has become displeasing to them, much to the perverse satisfaction of the Gulf States. You put it all very well.
If you’re so interested, here is a short where Florida Governor Bob Graham (a democrat, no less) asserts there is redacted information in The 9/11 Report which is damning for the Saudi Government as to their involvement, particularly with financing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOC_cKXvh0Q
If what Gov. Graham says the report contains is true, Saudi Arabia owes us BIG TIME compensation.
dumbledoresarmy says
What beats me is why people who normally oppose imperialism/ colonialism cannot see that Islam – the ideology, the cult, both as taught and as historically practised – is imperialism/ colonialism on speed…indeed, on crack, on crystal meth. That at the core of Islam – canonical Islam – is an encouragement of an attitude both within the individual Muslim and within the ummah/ allah gang considered as a human gestalt, that might best be defined as a blend of malignant narcissism and megalomania; aiming at nothing less than for Muslims to Rule the entire planet and treat every non-Muslim on it like so much garbage? One astute 19th century scholar concluded that at the core of Islam was nothing other than “a pantheism of Force”. In other words, the worship of raw amoral Power for its own sake, untrammelled by any other considerations. Hitler’s system is perhaps best understood as a pale imitation, a cheap knock-off, of Islam (he was *reading* books by a Muslim author, whilst he was cooking up Nazism).
Every person who affirms the rights of indigenous peoples to resist imperialism should be cheering for those who, in Europe, resist Islamisation; and they should *also* be cheering on anybody else, anywhere – most notably, the Jewish state of Israel – who is defying the de facto Empire of Islam and resisting the Muslim onslaught.
Back in the day, the cause of the indigenous Christian Greeks seeking to throw off the invading and occupying Turkish Muslim yoke, was just, and was supported by all revolutionary romantics such as Lord Byron, Shelley, Keats, etc.
It’s time our modern revolutionaries realized that they ought to be joining the Resistance To Islamisation.
And in the case of majority non-Muslim regions such as Australia or the Americas, the *indigenous* First Nations non-Muslims have got to make common cause with their fellow – non-indigenous – non-Muslims …because otherwise they will be gobbled up by the Global Jihad and annihilated altogether, and because any two non-Muslims whatever their ethnicity or background have more in common with each other – as non-Muslim *humans* who like pet dogs, music, visual arts and uncovered women – than either of them has with any slave of Islam. Any native American or aboriginal Australian who embraces Islam in the deluded belief that they are thus ‘socking it’ to the majority nonindigenous society is a blind fool…because in becoming Muslim they are in fact tossing in the garbage everything their *own* forebears did to try to preserve language, identity and culture, and are allowing themselves to become zombie slaves of the *Arab* imperial cult, driver of perhaps the most extravagantly murderous and destructive Empire in all of human history.
Linde Barrera says
To dumbledoresarmy- Thank you for your powerful response to Georg. You are really “cooking” tonight!
Westman says
dumbledoresarmy,
Very precise and accurate. This contains elements that should coming from the mouths of Western leaders.What “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”, will befall their citizens before the truth permeates their intellect?
Kepha says
DDA–good, sensible post as usual.
However, to the average person at the beginning of the 21st century, “imperialism” means not the state’s or leader’s self-aggrandizement at the expense of others, but a specifically white, non-socialist, and Western phenomenon of the 19th and early 20th centuries. By definition, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Islam Dan Fodio, Mehmet II, Babur Shah, the early Caliphs, Qin Shi Huang, and whoever cannot be “imperialist”. Go figure.
Georg says
Outstanding post, DDA
It never ceases to impress that a phrase like “a pantheism of Force” can so articulate the nature of what we’re dealing with. I just watched a documentary on the Ottoman Empire the other day where some “expert” in Islamic art gleefully told of the Ottoman obligation and compulsion to take Constantinople. It was particularly vomitous as the only thing they ever talk about besides Islam is our evil, always evidenced by our colonial ambitions…
I just looked it up, it starts at 12:40 if you’d like to see. Watching it a second time may have given me a minor stroke. Interesting how it was just so natural that the Ottoman’s had no choice but to take it. It’s about as sanctimonious, oblivious and hypocritical a rendition as there is given their grievance mongering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI7Qkcyz3tM
At least it explains the historic formation of CRISIS.
Wellington says
The New York Times can regularly be counted on to explore every possible option but the truthful, sensible and accurate one on a whole host of issues, Muslim immigration to Western nations being a sterling example of this “proclivity.”
The New York Times should be read for two reasons: 1) for laughs; 2) for figuring out how the US and the world would work optimally by concluding exactly the opposite of what The New York Times editorializes about (which, anymore, can be found not only on the editorial page per se but virtually throughout the entire newspaper, especially beginning with page one).
Kepha says
Wellington:
When I left the State Department back in 1995, I had reported on issues including a long-simmering ethnic/political/religious conflict in Chinese Turkistan (deliberate, colonial-sounding anachronism used intentionally) and a multi-state war in Central Africa precipitated by the Rwandan horrors. I saw that except for a few odd publications like _The Economist_, few in the major media reported on such things. Instead, the MSM in the USA at the time was more concerned about utter trivilaities.
In my lifetime, I’ve also seen the NYTimes go ga-ga over the mass-murdering Hunanese marmot, and more recently, described Pakistani immigrants as “Arab”. So, when I look at history and see how the gray lady covered up mass starvation in Stalin’s Ukraine back when and Islamic troublemaking now, I have come to have a very jaundiced view of our erstwhile information gatekeepers. Indeed, when I was a university lecturer in political science in my post-diplomatic life, I was not all that impressed with the journalism majors. Indeed, I think that these shapers of America’s herd mentality were themselves, when young, more likely to be herd animals and parroters of the currently fashionable than independent thinkers.
shams78 says
Did the same media also happen to report on the Philippines butchering and rape of Moro Muslims in Mindanao? If not then its better to stay silent rather than get exposed as a hypocrite.
Oh and you keep conveniently forgetting that America needed China during the Sino-Soviet split since China was also supplying arms to right wing anti-Soviet movements like UNITA in Angola and the Afghan Mujahideen. If anything was swept under the rug, it was because of America’s hatred for Soviet Communism and it was right wing Nixon who visited China and Nixon and other American right wingers who arranged for your media to go “gaga” to open up new relations with China.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/china-muslim-leader-says-beer-festival-open-provocation-to-the-islamic-faith/comment-page-1#comment-1257811
Given the massive errors I’ve previously corrected in your claims about “Turkistan” which you use as a misnomer for the entire Xinjiang (the northern half which is called Dzungaria for a reason, not “Uygharia”) I certainly hope nobody “learned” anything from your reports.
Next time instead of selectively bashing Communist countries, look up on the facts and history surrounding each case (such as the fact that at least half of Xinjiang is not part of “Turkistan”, and most Han and Hui immigrants end up in that part where very few Uyghurs live).
Uyghurs themselves are very chauvinist and nationalistic, many Uyghurs will tell you they also admire Hitler and they have ultranationalist historians like Turghun Almas who told Uyghurs that they invented gunpowder, the paper, the compass and printing and that the mighty Uyghur Empire was the source of all human civilization and existed for 6,000 years in Xinjiang, totally ignoring the fact that Indo-European Tocharians were the first there and Uyghurs are Turkic invaders from Siberia.
I don’t know where you are getting this facile idea that Uyghurs cannot be chauvinist bigots themselves other than the fact that since you hate Communists you are automatically going to side with anyone who is against them. I certainly hope you do not sympathize with ISIS just because their YPG Kurdish opponents (PKK) are Communist Marxists.
Kepha says
欢迎老马回来。
我并没说维吾尔人不是沙文主义者,我也没赞美所有的民族主义。您既然提到新疆北路, 你现在了解为什么民族沙文主义是大错误–包括汉族老大哥之“洋人如何对带我们,我们就同样对待你们。“
So, Bro. Ma, you now admire Syria?
Angemon says
Kepha, do you remember a user going by the name of “mazo/horse”? shams78 sounds exactly like him, minus the potty mouth.
shams78 says
I wrote a post but for some reason it isn’t going through. How come I’m not allowed to type in characters here but Kepha can?
Georg says
Stuff happens.
Kepha says
So the Danish People’s Party is “anti-immigrant”? What do they think of African or Asian Christians (particularly if Lutheran) who come to Denmark and are willing to learn Danish and work for a living? Please inform.
Here in the USA, you’re “anti-immigrant” if you want the existing laws enforced, even if you have nothing at all against people who come here legally.
mortimer says
Denmark is small. If they don’t nurture themselves, there soon won’t be any Danes or Danish culture. It will become another Berzerkistan.
Agent of Liberty says
Really great analysis and blog Robert. This should be printed in the NYT. But I don’t read NYT. They do not write truths.
st. patrick says
Superb comment and analysis georg..Thank you..It’s all too obvious..The Danes will be the first frogs to boil..
Georg says
Thanks for reading, st. partrick. It’s always nice to know there are others out there who actually give a care.
st. patrick says
To Dda and Wellington..Thanks to you both..You. always help my mind..
Dan Dagen says
This was a very informative article. well done.
Lia Wissing says
Very well done, Denmark! Now we begin to see the people who protected their Jews against the nazis.
dumbledoresarmy says
Holger Dansker is awakening…
famlev says
In all this one forgets that when Muslim men have more than one wife the other wives can ask for single mother benefits and child benefits which may also include a house in some countries. Thus the husband can have more than one wife and not pay for them. — they marry the others religiously and not to through the State.
Linde Barrera says
To famlev- Your comment shows the sneakiness and despicable attitude of recipients on public assistance AND how governments enable them. I think it’s time for stricter record keeping, DNA testing and possibly, mandatory sterilization after a woman has given birth to 3 children while accepting public assistance. This may sound severe, but having 3 children and being on public assistance is plenty, enough already!
bullfrogger says
Perhaps the worm indeed hath turneth . Time to just push harder .Increase the momentum . We need a real solution and must not settle for more lies and compromises . Not temporary patch jobs or delays . We need an end game , drawn up only by us and executed completely . No coalition necessary . It is time again for us to stand on our own feet and declare to all . treat us right , you will never have a better friend , but wrong us and you will feel the pain without apology . We must once again define who we are , not leave it to others so as to fit their own agendas . We are America and we are good . No more bowing to anyone . This problem should have never gotten this big .