DALLAS, OBAMA, AND THE FALSE FOUNDATION OF THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT

              The deeply dishonest  and divisive President Obama is scheduled to speak this Tuesday at a memorial for the five murdered Dallas Policemen.  This is a grotesque insult to the fallen officers and their law enforcement comrades nationwide, but is typical of the twisted presumption that the nation somehow requires the guidance of a discredited president whenever a major tragedy attracts widespread media attention. 

                The Nation should turn its back on what will certainly be a fraudulent political speech.  After mouthing the standard bromides and formalities necessitated by such an occasion, Obama can be expected to draw a false equivalence between the genuine tragedy of race-based anti-police violence and the insidious fiction that there is widespread law enforcement discrimination against blacks. 

              The Dallas police should give Obama the same treatment the NYPD officers gave the hypocrite NYC Mayor de Blasio when he had the audacity to show up at the funeral of a policeman who was killed in the very climate of anti-police/anti-white hatred that de Blasio and his ilk have incited.  The NYC officers turned their backs on de Blasio, and the Dallas officers should do the same to Obama.

                Those who share responsibility for the Dallas officers' murders should not be allowed anywhere near their memorial service, let alone be invited to speak as chief eulogist.  Yet the very man whose divisive rhetoric helped establish the atmosphere of anti-police animosity in which attacks on police became inevitable will be allowed to use the officers' service as a platform to reiterate the fallacies that fueled these murders – i.e., the anti-white police gospel of the insidious Black Lives Matters (BLM) movement whose malicious demonstration provided the stage and environment  for Micah "X" Johnson's murder of the white officers.

                There can be no doubt about this:  Obama and his fellow racial agitators in government, politics, media, and the black community do bear grave responsibility for the poisonous climate of anti-police/anti-white malice that they have persistently cultivated.  And it is that sulfurous climate which provided a false sense of legitimacy for the racist anger that motivated Micah Johnson to commit his murderous atrocities.  In case after case, Obama and his political and media allies have instantly pounced on any police action that injures black hoodlums to parrot false and inflammatory claims of discriminatory treatment -- only to be proven horribly wrong when the facts reveal it was the black miscreant (e.g., Michael Brown), not the officer, who was at fault.  But the Black Lives Matter mobs are utterly oblivious to any facts that contradict their anti-police malice, and Obama and his minions have persistently reinforced their defiance of the facts that undermine their implacable hostility.

                SR acknowledges there are those who deny that Obama and his fellow racial agitators bear any responsibility for the Dallas murders.  These apologists lamely invoke the premise that only the actual perpetrator bears full responsibility and that placing any responsibility on others somehow diminishes the killer's guilt. 

                This is a bogus "straw man" argument, asserted in order to absolve those who feed the flames of any responsibility for the conflagration that follows.  No one is denying or diminishing  the perpetrator's individual guilt; rather, they are only making the obvious point that nurturing a pervasive atmosphere of intense anti-police animosity tends to breed anti-police violence.

                An atrocity like the Dallas police murders may have many "but for" causes, even though the actual perpetrator bears direct and primary responsibility, and only he is chargeable with the murder itself.  Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Al Sharpton, and countless celebrity leftists have all fomented anti-police and anti-white malice by constantly repeating the gross falsehood that there is a nationwide pattern of discriminatory law enforcement against blacks.  But for the poisonous narrative portraying police as racist dragoons out to persecute innocent black "youths" nurtured by Obama and his leftist minions, it is unlikely that Micah Johnson would have reached the fever pitch of malice against white policemen that possessed him.  And it is unlikely that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement would have achieved the prominence and power that enabled it to stage massive anti-police demonstrations of the type that provided the stage and setting chosen by Johnson for his murderous assaults.

                There are many reasons to be furious about the Dallas atrocity and other violent disruptions fueled by the BLM movement and its political and media cheerleaders, but the utterly fraudulent  premise and foundation for the entire campaign is the most infuriating aspect of the whole ugly charade.

                Obama, his successive black Attorneys General, and their allies and echo chambers in the media have relentlessly repeated the canard that black anger and resentment against police is perfectly understandable, and even justified, because police engage in consistently discriminatory enforcement of the laws against blacks, especially young black males. 

                The contention is not only false, it is wildly false, and, indeed, the opposite of the truth.  Far from going out of their way to invite predictably contentious or even violent response by confronting truculent black males with unfounded criminal charges, police are understandably reticent to press criminal charges against urban black males except in the most clear-cut and serious circumstances. 

                This is now so well understood that we even have a recognized name for it:  The Ferguson Effect.  Police officers nationwide are keenly aware that any enforcement confrontation with blacks in an inner-city environment poses a grave risk that they will be video-recorded, charged with discriminatory practices, or even physically threatened or attacked by surrounding crowds.

                The most common form of the "discriminatory enforcement" charge is simply to make it as a sweeping generalization that presumably no one would pesume to question – especially in mainstream media discussions, where the leftist moderators and commentators are only too willing to accept as gospel anything and everything asserted by advocates of the blacks-as-victims gospel.  The generalizations are then often followed by invocation of such popular maxims as the bogus "driving while black" slogan, which falsely assumes the premise that black drivers are stopped by police more often because they are black, rather than because they commit more violations; and the equally bogus "racial profiling" canard, which is based on the incoherent and illogical premise that evidence of criminal suspects' race must be disregarded in criminal investigations.  Then the advocates' glibly assert their own alleged (and likely fictional) experiences in being singled out by police in their youth because of their race – a clever technique indeed, because unwitnessed fabrications of long past incidents are  impossible to refute. 

                Fortunately, the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) have been maintaining official data on race and crime for many decades.  Extensive, longstanding, and consistent, the data demonstrate that blacks commit a vastly disproportionate share of violent crimes. 

                Thus, the fact that blacks constitute a disproportionate percentage of those arrested and incarcerated for violent crime is plainly not because our police and law enforcement authorities are engaged in racist discrimination.  Given that our highest law enforcement positions at both federal and state levels are heavily occupied by blacks – like our last two Attorney Generals, and the current Secretary of Homeland Security, to name only a few – this would be rather remarkable and counterintuitive.  No, the reason for this disproportion is because blacks commit an extremely high percentage of total violent crimes – a total that far exceeds their percentage of the overall U.S. population.

                Murder is perhaps the best example.  Going back at least three decades, the government data demonstrates that blacks commit about  52% of U.S. murders, year after year (for the period 1980-2008, 52.5% of homicides were committed by blacks, whereas 45.3% were committed by whites).  Yet blacks constitute only 13% of the U.S. population.  This being the case, one would expect that Blacks would constitute about 50% of those sentenced and executed to capital punishment for murder.  But one would be wrong.  In fact, white murderers are both sentenced to death and actually executed  in consistently greater numbers than blacks (for a full analysis of this subject, see my 2014 post, The Capital Canard of Death Penalty Discrimination) .  Since 1976, 55.5% of those executed for murder in the U.S. were white, while only 34.6% were black.  In other words, a white murderer is far more likely to be convicted and executed for murder than a black. 

                So much for Obama's contention that the criminal law is applied to blacks with disproportionate severity.  On the contrary.

                The data on other violent crimes similarly confirms the hard fact that blacks consistently commit violent crimes at a vastly higher rate than whites or other races in America.  The studies and reports vary somewhat in the detail, but the findings are consistent on the basic point.  They show that blacks are roughly eight times more likely to commit robbery than whites; commit violent crimes in general at a rate four to eight times greater than whites; and are 39 times more likely to commit inter-racial crimes against whites than vice versa.  On the local level, disproportionate crime by blacks is sometimes even more striking.  One study showed that for the period January-June, 2008, 83% of gun assaults in New York City were committed by blacks, even though they represented only 24% of the city population.

                Thus, when Obama and his minions glibly repeat the canard that black anti-police animosity is the understandable consequence of discriminatory enforcement against innocent young black youths, know that they are perpetrating a dangerous falsehood of Goebels-like proportions.  Blacks, and young black males in particular, are more likely to experience stops, arrests, and other coercive interactions with police because they commit vastly more of the crimes that necessitate such confrontations.  The whole edifice of the Black Lives Matter campaign is built upon a demonstrably fraudulent foundation of lies and calumnies. 

                Outrageously, however, Obama is apt to subtly re-insinuate this dangerous  fallacy when he delivers his supposedly "healing" message at the memorial for the murdered Dallas policemen.  If he does, let us hope that his deeply dishonest message is treated with the contempt it deserves.

THREE BRAVE LADIES AT EUROPE'S GATES: THE LE PEN'S OF FRANCE AND GERMANY'S FRAUKE PETRY

              Here in the U.S., the most prominent woman in politics is a dull, elderly, and wretchedly unlikeable termagant who has been inflicting the same tiresome canards upon a bored and jaded public for 24 years.  The only thing more depressing about Hilary Rodham Clinton than her crass dishonesty and pandering is her sheer banality and lack of anything resembling a genuinely human personality.

                But across the Atlantic in Europe, while the European Community and its constituent pseudo-nations lurch from one fiasco to another, a glimmer of hope has been generated by three highly interesting conservative women whose appealing and admirable qualities stand in stark contrast to the tiresome Mrs. Clinton.  To paraphrase the ubiquitous Dos Equis beer commercial, they might even be called the most interesting women in the political world.

                In France, the intrepid and determined leader of the populist Front National (FN), Marine Le Pen, poses an existential threat to the effete male leadership of France's establishment parties -- and is giving perpetually frustrated French conservatives a genuine prospect of electing a conservative nationalist in the next presidential election. 

                                                                              

                                                                                              americandigest.org
                         Marine Le Pen, formidable leader of France's Front National

                Waiting in the wings, moreover, Ms. Le Pen's youthful and glamorous niece and political Padawan, 26-year-old Marion Marechal Le Pen, stands ready to electrify legions of French nationalists with a brand of determined and pure-hearted Christian leadership not seen here since Joan of Arc rallied the French armies against the English in the Hundred Years War.

                                                                  

                                                                                                   returnofkings.com
               Marion Marechal Le Pen, the bright young face of French nationalism

                Meanwhile, yet another youthful and attractive political heroine, Dr. Frauke Petry (her doctorate is in chemistry), has led Germany's own conservative/nationalist party, the Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), to sudden prominence and strengthening prospects in a nation paralyzed by malaise and uncertainty.  Frau Petry and the AfD have provided a political alternative for millions of angry Germans whose objections to the de facto Islamic invasion of their country have been scornfully dismissed by Chancellor Angela Merkel and her spineless minions in the German political establishment.  Like the Le Pen ladies in France, Frau Petry has demonstrated raw political and physical courage in standing up to the rabid minions of the European left and its establishment allies, who seek to suppress the AfD and its leaders with violent demonstrations, physical threats, and official legal persecution.  On top of all that, the pixie-coiffed and mini-skirted Dr. Petry provides a refreshing visual alternative to the haggard Frau Merkel.

                                                                                     

                                                                                              cdn.newsapi.com
                                          Determined AfD Leader Frauke Petry

                Madam Marine Le Pen, the daughter of erstwhile FN founder and hard-core rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen, is now the President and leader of the FN and its expected presidential candidate in the national elections scheduled for April, 2017.  She has achieved remarkable political success notwithstanding the relentless hostility of the French and European media, which reflexively and mindlessly portray her as a disreputable hard core right-winger -- just as they do with Dr. Petry and the younger Mme. Le Pen. 

                This rote characterization is grossly misleading, particularly as applied to the relatively pragmatic Marine Le Pen and Frauke Petry -- both of whom have become increasingly flexible as they seek to move their parties from the political margins to the status of broadly-based and viable national parties.  If any of these three political ladies has truly earned the status of a staunch and principled rightist, it is the younger Ms. Le Pen, who appears to embrace a brand of social conservatism that Marine Le Pen and Frau Petry tend to downplay – albeit probably for tactical reasons.

                In seeking to rid the FN of the politically fatal reputation of far-right extremism, Marine Le Pen has even gone so far as to expel her flamboyant and unyielding father from the party he founded, reportedly because of impolitic statements about the Holocaust (interestingly, the younger Marion Le Pen did not support the expulsion).  She has modulated the FN's image and platform to a position that is decidedly more moderate than that of her truculent father (who says her purported backsliding will lead to electoral defeat) and somewhat more moderate than her socially conservative and more charismatic niece Marion.  But this merely reflects the fine line a conservative party like the FN must follow if it wants to win national elections in a country that has followed a liberal/leftist tilt for decades.  Beneath her calculated pragmatism, however, Marine Le Pen remains a committed conservative nationalist, and she has the political scars to prove it.

                In any case, Mme. Le Pen has successfully led the FN to the status of a major player in France's fractured multi-party system—to the point where she is considered a serious prospect for winning next year's French presidential elections.  In the 2012 presidential election, Mme. Le Pen took 18% of the divided vote but fell short of qualifying for the second round in France's convoluted election system.  But in the 2014 elections for French representation in the European Parliament, the FN topped all French parties with 25% of the vote, winning 21 of 74 French seats.  And in the 2015 regional elections, the FN took 27% of the vote and finished first in 6 of 13 newly drawn regions.  In brief, the FN's political progress under Mme. Le Pen has been steady and substantial.  The question of whether the party has reached a ceiling for a rightist party in France, however, is apt to be answered in next year's elections.

                Yet Marine Le Pen's prudent efforts to modulate the FN's positions without alienating its core constituents have failed to mollify the rabid hostility of France's left-oriented political and media establishment.  In the deranged political atmosphere prevailing in contemporary France, reasonable advocates of more conservative, Euroskeptic policies in general, and resistance to the destructive de facto Islamic invasion in particular, are not only castigated as right-wing extremists, but are under the constant threat of actual criminal prosecution for the mere expression of conservative opinions.  There is no First Amendment in France, or elsewhere in the ideologically intolerant European Community.

                Indeed, Mme. Le Pen was actually prosecuted by French authorities for allegedly inciting hatred against Muslims based upon entirely defensible remarks she made in 2010, comparing the obstruction of French streets by hordes of Muslims engaging in mass prayer demonstrations to the German occupation of World War II.  After enduring five years under this legal Sword of Damocles, Mme. Le Pen was finally acquitted of these utterly bogus political charges in December of 2015.  As she rightfully remarked after her acquittal, “Five years of aspersions, one acquittal. . .  And now how many slanderers will apologize?”

                Notwithstanding the FN's recent successes – and those of other rightist parties elsewhere in Europe, e.g., Austria's rapidly rising Freedom Party -- Marine Le Pen's prospects for actually winning the French presidency in next year's election remain uncertain.  Just as in recent French legislative elections, Mme. Le Pen may well win the most votes in the first round of France's fragmented multi-party election process, only to face a cynical alliance of establishment parties expressly forged to bar Le Pen and the FN from the presidency.  On the other hand, one more Islamic terrorist attack inside the French Republic may be all it takes for a an eruption of nationalist anger to propel Mme. Le Pen to the presidency. 

                Even if she falls short of winning the presidency, however, Marine Le Pen has earned a place among the world's most influential conservatives by leading the FN to the brink of power in French politics and by giving voice to the profound concerns of French patriots who belatedly recognize the necessity of political resistance to the relentless Islamic encroachment on their Republic.

            
                If nothing else, moreover, the expansion of the FN's base and prospects engineered by Marine Le Pen may pave the way for her captivating niece to lead future French conservatives to a political dominance that has heretofore evaded them.  Only 26 years old, Marion Marechal Le Pen (MMLP) was elected to the French parliament at only 22, making her the youngest member of parliament in modern French history.  Her youth, courage, and unabashed patriotism have predictably cast her in the role of a latter-day Joan of Arc, ready to lead French resistance to the menacing incursions of Islamic migrants and degenerate Euro-leftists.   Prominent women as varied as Sarah Palin and Brigitte Bardot have declared their admiration and enthusiasm for this bright new face of French conservatism and nationalism.

                MMLP demolished the notion that she is merely a pretty political face when she trounced veteran 72-year-old Gaullist PM and presidential hopeful Alain Juppe in a televised political debate.  If such debates allowed for Technical Knockouts, M. Juppe would have suffered one.  As described in the UK's Telegraph (Dec. 5, 2015):  "With the odd toss of her long blond hair, the poised Ms Maréchal Le Pen trounced one of France’s best-known political figures. She gave back soundbite for soundbite, smilingly quoting from Juppé’s campaign platform verbatim, forcing him to look up his own points in the book he signed, and dropping on occasion the kind of Latin quote, Boris Johnson-like, which France’s right-wing electorate loves. She made him sound old without sounding wiser."

                While there is no doubt that her youth and beauty have enhanced her political appeal, it is the combination of those assets with her staunch commitment to socially conservative and patriotic principles that distinguishes Marion Le Pen from the general run of French conservative politicians – including her more cautious and pragmatic Aunt Marine.  She has been outspoken in her belief that Muslim immigrants must accommodate their religious practices to French customs and culture, to the dismay of the cowering poltroons in the mainstream parties and media.  As she has frankly stated, "In our country, we don’t wear djellaba clothing, we don’t wear a veil and we don’t impose cathedral-sized mosques".

                A committed Catholic, Marion Le Pen was a prominent participant in the remarkable mass demonstration of French conservatives opposing same-sex marriage who flooded the streets of Paris like latter-day sans culottes in 2013, as described on this blog.  It is this unabashed commitment to controversial principles and positions that distinguishes her from the more pragmatic and calculated conservatism of her aunt and Frauke Petry.  Whether Marion Le Pen will be able to maintain her impetuous dedication to the more controversial conservative causes as she advances in years and, hopefully, in political stature and responsibility is apt to be determined by the survival and growth of the political movement that she and her aunt are currently inspiring.

                Like Marine Le Pen, the trim and comely Frauke Petry has led her conservative AfD party to a level of prominence and popularity in Germany deemed unfathomable only a year ago.  In recent elections for the state parliaments, the AfD  (in existence for only three years) achieved unprecedented success for a post-World War II party of the right in Germany, receiving 1.3 million votes and winning multiple delegate seats in three of the states at issue .  In Saxony-Anhalt, the Afd took 24% of the vote and fifteen seats.  No new party has ever done so well so quickly in Germany.

                As with Mme. Le Pen, Frau Petry is relentlessly misrepresented as a far-right extremist even as she seeks to modulate her party's most hard-lined positions to enhance its acceptability among the broader electorate. 

                In particular, the leftist German media gleefully pounced on a remark made by Frau Petry last winter, responding to the menacing threat of unbridled mass migration of young Muslim men into Germany.  Stating what would be obvious to a government with any sense of national borders and security facing such a de facto invasion, Petry responded to a reporter that German border police officers “must stop illegal border crossings, and also make use of his firearm if necessary.”  She further elaborated:  “No policeman wants to fire on a refugee and I don’t want that either, but the last resort includes the use of armed force.”

                Dr. Petry, of course, was merely expressing the obvious point that when a nation is faced with an invasion of Muslim aliens that reaches the point of threatening public safety, resort to force by firearms may prove to be a last but necessary resort.  The validity of her position has been forcefully underscored by the recurring rapes, assaults, and other violent crimes perpetrated by the so-called Muslim "refugees" whom Angela Merkel and her spineless government welcome with open arms.  Yet the German media have persisted in misrepresenting Petry's realistic remarks as though she had called for firing at will on any Muslim who crosses the German border. 

                Considering the near-suicidal capitulation to Muslim infiltration that pervades the German political and media establishment, Frau Petry might consider herself fortunate that her remarks did not result in actual prosecution for so-called hate speech or "incitement" – as recently befell another nationalist German politician who had the temerity to speak disparagingly of Muslims in a Facebook post.  Similarly, Germans who dared to describe the facts of the notorious New Years sex attacks on German women by Muslim aliens in Cologne have also been threatened with prosecution by German authorities for exposing the government's cover-up of the outrageous incident.  Indeed, even the liberal media in America has recognized the extremity of the German government's relentless efforts to prosecute political speech that is in any way critical of Muslims or Islam.  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germany-springs-to-action-over-hate-speech-against-migrants/2016/01/06/6031218e-b315-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html. 

                Simply put, in the near totalitarian atmosphere of Frau Merkel's twisted dystopian governance, Dr. Petry and her AfD cohorts demonstrate daily courage merely by expressing the most basic principles of German nationalism and self-preservation.

                Even while she is castigated by the German media for her supposedly xenophobic positions, Frau Petry's relatively moderate position on the Muslim issue within her own party has reportedly weakened her influence as leader of the AfD.  At the recent AfD congress, the party adopted policies that expressly declared that "Islam is not part of Germany" – a direct challenge to Merkel's contrary declaration – and called for a ban on minarets, public calls for Muslim prayer, and the public wearing of all-concealing burqas and niqabs.  Reportedly, Petry's proposal for a more moderate policy to achieve Muslim adaptation to German culture and standards was rejected.  Nonetheless, Petry apparently accepted and supported the final party position and retains her leadership position.

                Her remarks at the opening of the party congress, moreover, demonstrated the intrepid leadership that Frau Petry can provide to German patriots as they confront the abject capitulation of the Merkel government to hordes of hostile Muslim "migrants" as they infiltrate and defile their country and its culture.  With a barbed reference to Merkel's unyielding  adherence to her disastrous immigration policy, Petry declared:  "We always wondered when the brave child will finally appear to voice the thoughts of the silent majority and declare that the 'chancellor of no alternatives' doesn't know what she's doing.  And I think, this brave child is us."

                The courage, determination, and principled patriotism of France's Le Pen ladies and Germany's Frau Petry provide a striking contrast to the smug fraudulence of the tiresome termagant who has become the dominant female in American politics.  If these energetic women leaders succeed in their resistance to a disturbing new form of ideological totalitarianism, perhaps America may take the cue and avoid the kind of self-destructive national perversity into which much of Europe has descended.

WHEN CARPENTERS WERE ON TOP OF THE WORLD -- OF MUSIC

     The anniversary of Karen Carpenter's passing on February 4 (now 33 years ago) generally prompts SR to commemorate that beloved songstress with some historical insights on the musical legacy that she and her brother, Richard --  internationally renowned as the Carpenters -- have bestowed on the world's musical culture.  In a darkening age when Western culture is epitomized by the triumph of a bearded Austrian drag queen at the highly publicized Eurovision musical contest, the preservation and perpetuation of genuinely beautiful and edifying musical treasures is more critical than ever.

     It is well documented that the Carpenters produced more hit singles in the decade of the 1970's than any other American group or solo artist.  Only three non-American superstars -- Elton John, Paul McCartney, and the Bee Gees -- surpassed them in that regard, as detailed in Joel Whitburn's The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits.  And the Carpenters may well have surpassed even those luminaries in that ranking had their amazing run of recording supremacy from 1970to 1975 not been cut short by the onset of Karen's ultimately fatal debilitation by anorexia nervosa starting around 1976.

     Apart from their prominence in this ranking of singles artists, however, the Carpenters are rarely, if ever, recognized among the genuinely elite musical superstars of their era.  As this blog has previously noted and decried, for example, the Carpenters have long been perversely excluded from admission to the ill-administered Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, while performers of vastly inferior accomplishments and talent are consistently admitted.

     Although cultural bias may bar the Carpenters from that Philistene institution, the straightforward historical record can still accurately recognize the remarkable musical legacy of the sibling Duo from Downey.  And there is a very important aspect of that legacy that has apparently never been recognized:  During the period of 1973-75, the Carpenters were almost certainly the most successful pop or rock recording artists in the world.  In particular, historical Japanese chart data maintained by Tokyo's Oricon, Inc., has proven especially helpful in documenting the Carpenters' particularly impressive popularity in the world's second largest music market.

                                                                 

                          The concentration of vocal genius in the A&M studios

     There are three main measures of success for evaluating recording artists during the Carpenters' era (today one would probably add videos):  album sales, singles sales, and concert attendance.  And the measurement should take into account the international market, not merely the United States.  In that respect, the top three markets during the seventies were (as they are today): 1. United States; 2. Japan; and 3. the UK. Other significant markets of note would include France, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands.  But the top three markets provide a valid marker for international success, based on their pre-eminent importance and availability of data.

     Taking into account all three success markers, across the three leading international markets and others, the Carpenters accomplishments from 1973 to 1975 were simply unequaled.

Albums

     Carpenters recorded three general release albums during this period:  Now and Then (1973), The Singles (1973-74), and Horizon (1975).  In addition, they released three albums for the Japan market only: Gem II (1973), Golden Prize II (1974), and Live in Japan (1975).  The success of all of those albums in the Top 3 markets was nothing less than astonishing.

     Now and Then reached No. 1 in Japan and No. 2 in both the U.S. and UK.  It also hit No. 1 in Australia and No. 2 in Canada and the Netherlands.

     The Singles hit No. 1 in the U.S. on the Billboard Albums chart and held No. 1 for a stunning 17 weeks in the UK, where it was far and away the top-selling album for 1974.  The Carpenters' competition on the UK charts for that year included Elton John, Paul McCartney, David Bowie, and Rod Stewart, which demonstrates just how difficult it was for Carpenters to achieve the success they did.

     Horizon scored No. 1 again for the Carpenters in both the UK and Japan in 1975.  It reached only No. 13 in the U.S., however.

     In Japan, meanwhile, Gem II reached No. 3 in 1973, Golden Prize scored another No. 1 in 1974, and Live in Japan reached No 8 in 1975.  The Carpenters had 2 of the top 4 albums-- Golden Prize and Now and Then -- for all of 1974 in the entire Japanese market.  Ultimately, the Carpenters were topped only by the Beatles in album sales by international artists in Japan during their era (Mariah Carey has since exceeded them both).

     The Carpenters' success in topping the charts with all these albums in each of the world's three leading markets clearly established their superiority in the international albums sector in this period.

                                                           

                    Karen and Richard in the peak years of their recording success

Singles

     The Carpenters single sales during this period were no less impressive, although not quite so imposing on the international side.  In that respect, a peculiarity of the Japanese record market warrants mention.  For esoteric reasons non-Japanese artists rarely crack the top ranks in single sales there, although they fare much better in album sales.  Consequently, although the Carpenters were far and away the leading "foreign" singles artists in Japan (above the Beatles and everyone else) --  and remained so until 2012 -- their rankings on the Oricon singles charts were not so astronomical as their albums rankings.

     In 1973, Carpenters released three U.S. singles:  Sing, Yesterday Once More, and Top of the World.  Each of them was enormously successful on both the national and international level.

     Sing reached No. 1 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart (AC)  and No. 3 on the Billboard Hot 100.  Internationally, it scored No. 1 in Hong Kong and on the Oricon International chart (ranking foreign artists in the Japanese market), No. 4 in Canada, and No. 18 in the overall Japanese market.

     As previously documented on this blog, Yesterday Once More was one of the most popular international hits of the 70's.  It was No. 1 on three of the four major U.S. charts, No. 2 in both Japan and the UK, and No. 1 in Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Israel, Venezuela, and on Oricon International.  It was No. 7 on the United World Chart ranking the top hits in the entire world for all of 1973.

     Top of the World was yet another monster hit, domestically and internationally.  It was No. 1 on the main U.S. charts, as well as in Australia and Canada, and No. 5 in the UK. It was No. 14 on the United World Chart for all of 1973.

     Carpenters rounded out 1973 with a limited foreign release of Jambalaya, which reached No. 12 in the UK and Ireland and No. 3 in the Netherlands.

     1974 saw the Downey Duo release two more international hit singles.  Their cover of the popular Motown hit, Please Mr. Postman, produced yet another No. 1 for the Carpenters both on all U.S. charts as well as in Canada, Australia, Germany, and New Zealand, while reaching No. 2 in the UK and Ireland, No. 5 in Switzerland, and No. 8 in Brazil.  Their other 1974 release, I Won't Last a Day Without You, was the usual No. 1 for the Carpenters on the Adult Contemporary chart, No. 9 on Record World, and No. 11 on the Hot 100.  Internationally, Won't Last a Day was No. 1 in Hong Kong and on Oricon International, as well as No. 7 in Canada and No. 9 in the UK.

     By 1975, the Carpenters' popularity started to decline somewhat domestically -- driven no doubt by the cynical critics disdain for their civil and congenial style --  even while they continued to excel internationally. Even so, Only Yesterday achieved another No. 1 on the AC chart and a strong No. 4 on the Hot 100, while scoring No. 1 on the Global/United World chart for the entire year, No. 1 on Oricon International, No. 2 in Canada, and No. 7 in the UK.

     It is indicative of just how extreme was the Carpenters' success in producing super-hit singles that their second 1975 release, the moving ballad Solitaire, was considered a major disappointment when it peaked at No. 17 on the Hot 100 -- even though it was No. 1 on the AC chart and No. 12 in Canada.

     With no less than five chart-topping international mega-hits, the Carpenters superiority in the singles field during this period was as imposing as it was in the albums charts.

Concerts

     As difficult as it is to retrieve international record sales data from over 40 years ago, it is even more so in the case of concert popularity.  Indeed, it is futile.  Nonetheless, the information that is available concerning the Carpenters' extraordinary -- and, unfortunately, probably excessive -- concert tour success in the mid-1970's demonstrates that they were certainly at or near the top in this element of pop star achievement.

     The number and geographical range of concerts played by the Carpenters during 1973-75 was staggering, as detailed on the LeadSister.com website.  They played 174 concerts in 1973, 208 in 1974, and 118 in 1975.  They played in convention centers, university field houses, civic centers, coliseums, and state fairs across the United States, usually to packed houses.  Among the huge throngs they played before was a crowd of 50,000 at the Ohio State Fair.  They also performed in many of the most prestigious venues in America and abroad, including Carnegie Hall, the Grand Ole Opry, the Hollywood Bowl (where the 18,000 seats were twice sold-out for Carpenters concerts), the Boston Pops, London's Palladium and the Royal Albert Hall, and Tokyo's Budokan.

     For their 1974 tour of Europe, they sold-out 18 consecutive concerts, including shows in the Netherlands and Belgium that are recorded on Youtube videos.

     But it was their 1974 tour of Japan that epitomized the Carpenters' remarkable international popularity at its peak. Their much fanfared arrival at Tokyo's Haneda Airport drew some 5,000 screaming fans and clamoring photographers and reporters, in scenes reminiscent of the Beatles' arrival in New York in 1964. Their concerts in Tokyo and Osaka sold-out within hours of announcement and the tour sold 85,000 tickets. The enormously favorable impact of their concert performances, and especially Karen's special ability to charm Japanese audiences, left a permanently favorable impression on the Japanese public which has continued into the 21st century.

     By any reasonable measure, the Carpenters' enormous and wide-ranging success as international touring pop performers set a standard that few, if any, of their musical peers could match -- and certainly not during their peak period of 1973-75.  Combined with their extraordinary success topping the singles and albums charts at home and abroad, there can be little doubt that during this peak period of their musical career, the Carpenters were the most successful recording artists in the world.  To borrow the title of one of their iconic hits, they were on top of the world.

     In the end, of course, the cold, hard figures of record and concert sales do not provide the most meaningful measure of a musical artist's achievements.  In the Carpenters' case, the sincere affection and appreciation of their sheer musical excellence expressed by their most prestigious musical peers, as well as by their faithful fans -- from Long Beach to London to Tokyo and even Shanghai -- provides a glowing testimonial that will always assure their place among the legends of popular music.

     Nonetheless, an objective documentation of their international pre-eminence at the height of their illustrious career is worth preserving to counteract the cynical naysayers who occasionally surface to denigrate the extraordinary achievements of Karen and Richard Carpenter.

CHRISTIAN MCCAFFREY: THE TRIUMPH OF GENES OVER STEREOTYPES

               Those who follow college or pro football know that a white running back is about as rare as a black swan.  Even though whites constitute about 77% of the total U.S. population, they constitute but a miniscule portion of running backs in both the major college ranks and the NFL. 

                While white running backs are extremely rare in the major college ranks, they are virtually non-existent in the NFL.  Indeed, there does not appear to be a single white starter at the running back position among the 32 teams in the NFL today.  Of the two white backs whose names might be recognized by NFL fans – Toby Gerhart of Jacksonville and Danny Woodhead of San Diego – Gerhart is not a starter, and Woodhead is more of a situational receiver rather than a regular running back. 

                The situation is not much different in the college ranks.  Virtually all running backs in the major conferences of NCAA football, as in the NFL, are blacks.  Over the past 30 years or so (until this year, of which more below), only two white running backs have been recognized as genuine All-Americans, the aforementioned Toby Gerhart of Stanford in 2009 and Luke Staley of Brigham Young back in 2001.  And neither of them established himself as a starting tailback in the NFL, although Gerhart has seen spot duty as a starter from time to time.

                Given the great desirability and prestige of this position at both the college and professional level, this near-total absence of whites seems quite remarkable.  In most desirable and lucrative fields of endeavor, the absence of members of a particular race is considered a matter of serious concern, or at least curiosity.  And given America's liberal-dominated political and cultural environment, such concern usually rises to the level of outrage, sensational publicity, and even government legal action if blacks are the excluded or absent category.  As but one example of many, the paucity of black head coaches in the NFL resulted in adoption of the so-called "Rooney Rule," whereby NFL teams are required to interview minority candidates whenever there is a coaching or other senior football operations vacancy.

                Yet the extreme paucity of whites among major college and NFL running backs (not to mention defensive cornerbacks, where whites are even rarer) – a paucity that has persisted for at least three decades – goes virtually unnoticed and unremarked.  It is as though sports journalists and commentators – not to mention fans -- have assimilated an unwritten rule that the subject is off-limits for discussion.

                                                                     

                          Christian McCaffrey:  Smashing records and stereotypes 

                In complete contrast, when there is the slightest hint of so-called "under-representation" of blacks in any area of the sports world, the liberal nerds who dominate sports journalism can be relied upon to throw hissy fits of indignation and to hurl feckless accusations of discrimination.  As but one example, when the percentage of blacks in major league baseball declined from a level well above the black share of the talent pool (which is an international pool, including Latin American and East Asian ballplayers) to a lower level more commensurate with that share, cries of wounded indignation and dismay reverberated through the sports media.  The fact that the reduction in the black percentage of MLB players was mainly a function of young black athletes' preference for football and basketball, as well as the expanding influx of Latino players (many of whom are themselves part black), was lost on the promoters of the entirely bogus black ballplayer shortage.  See SR's exposition of this canard, The Contrived Black Ballplayer Shortage (Apr. 17, 2013), at http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-contrived-black-ballplayer-shortage.html.

                Perhaps, however, the complete indifference to the absence of white running backs in football is simply based on widespread acceptance of the premise that white men are simply not fast enough to excel at this athletically demanding position. 

                At the highest levels of college football, and especially in the NFL, extreme speed is a mandatory qualification for the running back position.  In that regard, anyone familiar with the racial composition of the elite sprinting events at both the national and international level knows that blacks almost totally dominate these events.  Whether because of innate physiological differences, or some other inexplicable factor that is not readily apparent, neither whites nor any other racial or ethnic group seems to produce young men with the extreme running speed that is possessed by the black males who dominate speed-based athletic specialties.  As a result of this evident disparity, college and pro football coaches almost exclusively recruit blacks, and almost never recruit whites, for the running back position.

                                                                 

                                                                                    (Sports Illustrated, 1956) 

      McCaffrey's amazing grandfather, David Sime, with archrival Bobby Morrow                                           

                 Which brings us to Christian McCaffrey of Stanford University. 

                Almost out of nowhere, the sophomore McCaffrey emerged this year as one of the two or three top running backs in all college football.  He gained over 1,800 yards rushing, a total exceeded only by Derrick Henry of Alabama, who barely edged out McCaffrey for the Heisman Trophy, awarded to the outstanding player in college football.  But while Henry slightly surpassed McCaffrey as a runner from scrimmage, McCaffrey was in a class by himself as the top all-around back in college football.  He amassed an incredible 3,496 "all-purpose" yards, which include pass receiving and returning punts and kickoffs as well as total rushing yards.  This astonishing  total broke the all-time records previously held by the legendary Barry Sanders of Oklahoma State, considered by many as the greatest running back of all time.  Breaking Sanders' record was, needless to say, an enormous accomplishment.

                What separates McCaffrey from the very few distinguished white running backs of recent decades, like Gerhart and Luke Staley, is that they were primarily "power backs" with only modest speed, while McCaffrey is a genuine "speed-burner."  He has been laser-time at 4.50 sec. in the 40-yard dash, which would have placed him near the top end of the elite running backs who participated in the 2015 NFL Combine.  Yet McCaffrey is no light-weight.  He carries a solid, muscular 201 lbs. on his 6-foot even frame.  His great speed has not only enabled him to excel as a running back, but as a receiver, punt returner, and kick-off returner as well, all of which also demand great speed.

                Despite his current prominence, the young McCaffrey did not escape the prejudicial stereotypes that often attach to white athletes when they seek to qualify for positions assumed to be the exclusive preserve of black speedsters.  When he showed up for youth football camps or high school all-star combines, for example, observers would curtly dismiss his prospects as a running back, or assume he was a kicker or that he played some other position more "suitable" for white guys. 

                But fortunately, McCaffrey was recruited and coached by David Shaw, the present head football coach at Stanford, who was a teammate of Christian's father Ed as a Stanford undergraduate.  Shaw is black, and utterly lacking in the defensive assumptions about the limitations of white players that might affect a typically "by-the-book" and risk-averse white coach.  Not only did Coach Shaw quickly recognize Christian McCaffrey's superior ability as a running back, he has started him ahead of a collection of excellent black running backs – one of whom is actually Barry Sanders' son – on the basis of no-nonsense competition.  Shaw did not reach his current status as one of college football's best coaches by letting stereotypes of any kind get in the way of ruthless talent evaluation.

                The question naturally arises, then, what enabled McCaffrey to reach this elite level of speed that is seemingly so rare among white athletes.  The answer is:  the best gene combination imaginable, coupled with extensive training and focused ambition.

                McCaffrey's father is Ed McCaffrey, who was an extremely fast elite wide receiver at Stanford.  More impressively, he became a first-rank all-pro receiver in the NFL, where he also earned a remarkable three Super Bowl rings.  Ed's wife and Christian McCaffrey's mother is Lisa Sime, who was an outstanding soccer player at Stanford.  More importantly, Lisa is the daughter of the remarkable Dr. David Sime, who (as explained below) is probably the most critical genetic source of young McCaffrey's speed.  Lisa has jokingly remarked that she and Ed married "so we could breed fast white guys."  See http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/stanford-cardinal-christian-mccaffrey-rb-father-ed-david-shaw-mandel-101415.

                                                                   

                                                                                   (courtesy Lisa McCaffrey)

                       Ed and Lisa McCaffrey with their Stanford Superstar Son

                To round out this remarkable chain of athletic genetic connections, McCaffrey's uncle (Ed's brother) is Billy McCaffrey, who was the very excellent shooting guard on Duke's great 1991 NCAA basketball championship team headed by Christian Laettner. 

                It is small wonder, therefore, that Christian McCaffrey has turned out to be a remarkably successful athlete.  But his inheritance of the great speed that distinguishes him from other white running backs can be confidently ascribed to his maternal grandfather, the illustrious and highly interesting David Sime (pronounced "sim").

                Born in Paterson, NJ, Sime was first recruited by Duke University in 1954 as a star baseball player.  But Sime was equally outstanding in football, where he played split end, and was later drafted by the Detroit Lions (but he never pursued pro football).  But when casually timed for the 100-yard dash on an unfinished grass surface, Sime ran an astonishing  9.8 seconds.  The rest was track history.  He went on to set world records in the 100- and 220-yard sprints, as well as in the 220-yard low hurdles.  In total, he broke world track records seven times, and in the mid-1950's this red-headed flash was considered by many to be the fastest human in the world.

                Regrettably, a series of bad luck episodes prevented Sime from winning the Olympic gold medals that his enormous  abilities warranted.  In the build-up to the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne, Australia, Sime engaged in a monumental rivalry with Bobby Morrow of Abilene Christian University for world and U.S. sprinting supremacy.  In one of their epic duels, Sime edged out Morrow with a 9.4 time (then 1/10 of a second off the world record) in the 100-yard dash at the 1956 Drake Relays.  But Sime missed out on the Olympics that year due to an untimely groin injury, while his rival Morrow went on to win three gold medals and to be named Sports Illusrated's Sportsman of the Year.

                But Sime continued his track career with an eye toward the 1960 Olympics in Rome.  He was the leading sprinter on the U.S. team, but again he faced a formidable rival – in this case, the super-starting West German, Armin Hary.  Sime and Hary finished in a virtual dead-heat in the 100-meter dash, but Hary was awarded first place in a controversial photo-finish decision.  Sime then rallied to salvage a first place for the U.S. with a come-from-behind anchor leg in the 400-meter relay – only to again suffer disappointment when the U.S. was disqualified for a technical baton-exchange violation. 

                Notwithstanding his Olympic disappointments, however, Sime's achievements established him as one of the great sprinters of his era.  In recognition of this, as well as his enormous athletic versatility, he was named Duke's Outstanding Athlete of the 20^th Century, beating out such Durham legends as Christian Laettner and Dick Groat. 

                Capping it all off, Sime showed that his values and priorities were of the same high quality as his athletic achievements.  He passed up opportunities in professional sports to earn a medical degree at Duke Medical School, and went on to a successful career as an ophthalmologist.  His admiring grandson Christian only half-jokingly calls him the real "most interesting man in the world" (it would take another essay to get into such fascinating  Simes episodes as his role assisting the CIA in attempting to secure the defection of a prominent  Russian Olympic long-jumper).

                                                            * * *

                Considering this distinguished athletic lineage, it is not so surprising after all that Christian McCaffrey has reached the highest levels of achievement as a swift running back -- notwithstanding the stereotypical assumptions about the speed limitations of white athletes.  McCaffrey's case strongly indicates that an athlete's individual genetic heredity, rather than the generalized traits or limitations of his or her race, can be more pertinent in determining the capacities and propensities that lead to elite athletic performance.  Unlike the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, therefore, the elite white running back and the white sprinter are not doomed to extinction after all – as long as the likes of Ed McCaffrey and Lisa Sime meet, get married, and get busy.

FURY, NOT FEAR: THE SIMPLE SANITY OF LIMITS ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

               SR has been silent for several months for a disturbing reason:  Each time he is ready to write on the most recent hideous outrage in our dismal era, an even more ghastly development occurs that supersedes the previous, and so on almost ad infinitum. 

                But the depths of ignorance, hypocrisy, and cowardice to which the media and political left have descended in their rabid response to Donald Trump's proposal for a temporary halt in Muslim immigration summons SR from the sidelines to join this critical debate.

                In response to overwhelming evidence that the proliferation of Sharia-compliant Muslim aliens presents an imminent threat to public safety, Trump proposes a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until the crisis can be thoroughly evaluated and understood.  Good.

                Unfettered Muslim infiltration of Europe has caused an epidemic of violence and barbarism, corrupted European civilization and culture, and exploited EU public services to the breaking point.   In the face of this disgusting catastrophe, basic considerations of self-preservation demand that America take necessary measures to avoid similar disaster.  Trump's proposal is a straightforward effort to do just that.  SR staunchly defends Trump's proposal, moreover, even though we recognize that Trump is not a genuine conservative and we do not presently support him for the GOP nomination.

                                                         

                               Where is Charles Martel when we need him?

                Given the subversive fallacy of the attacks on Mr. Trump's proposal, it is important to tabulate the most important points that refute the orgy of falsehood, fraud, and treachery that is spreading  through  the corrupt American media.  Let's call them the Seven Pillars of Opposition to Islamist Immigration.  Here they are. 

                1.  Limits on Immigration by Designated Groups is Normal American Practice and is expressly authorized by law.  The hysterical opponents of Trump's proposal declare that it is a blatant violation of American traditions, and an affront to "who we are as a nation."  This is utter nonsense.  Recent and past American history is rife with sweeping laws, orders, and Presidential actions not only limiting immigration by designated groups but even placing them in detention camps -- as the revered Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt did with the Japanese in World War II.  Iranians, Syrians, Chinese, Japanese, and many others have all been targeted by strict bars on their entry to the U.S.  That is the American tradition and the American way.  More recently, the ultra-liberal Jimmy Carter ordered the near total exclusion of immigration from Iran – and he was plainly targeting Iranian Shiite Muslims, not Christians – as a response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  As Carter stated in 1979: 

   

             "[T]he Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly." 

                Such alien exclusion orders are expressly authorized by federal law (11 U.S.C. 1182(f), which states:

                "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

                Even the invertebrate Obama has ordered the exclusion of Syrians and Iranians who have committed "human rights abuses" no worse than the actions that all Muslims are obligated to take by the Koran.  When the Nation's security and welfare are threatened by identifiable foreign groups, our traditions and principles dictate that we exclude them, not welcome them.  That is exactly what Trump is proposing.

                2.  Trump's proposal is constitutional and lawful.  Having practiced constitutional law as Senior Counsel at the highest level of the Justice Department – the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) --  SR is well qualified to judge the constitutionality of Trump's exclusion proposal.  Various network legal buffoons – political hacks who would not survive the first round of interviews for a position at OLC -- smugly and instantly declared that the proposal was unconstitutional.  They are wrong.  As long as the exclusion measure includes the necessary exceptions that Trump has since clarified that he would adopt – such as an exception for existing Muslim-American citizens returning to the U.S. – it is clearly constitutional under the long-recognized "plenary principle" governing immigration by foreign persons.  Under that  standard, aliens seeking admission to the United States may be excluded for any reason, and they may not invoke the constitutional provisions (such as the equal protection clause or the First Amendment) that apply to U.S. citizens to support their efforts to gain entry.  Foreign persons simply have no constitutional right to enter the U.S., and the Constitution may not be invoked by them to force their way in.  Indeed, the above-quoted statute authorizes the President to order the exclusion of any alien categories whose entry would be inimical to U.S. interests.  That is exactly what Trump's proposal would do – exercising statutory authority given to the President by Congress to protect the nation from harmful immigration.

                3.  Muslim Immigration is not beneficial to the U.S.; it is demonstrably harmful.   Just as in the case of the illegal immigration invasion from Mexico, unhinged Democrats, "moderate" Republicans, and their media allies reflexively subordinate the interests of American citizens to the interests of undesirable and hostile foreign elements in connection with the Muslim immigration issue.  This is irrational and treacherous. The U.S. already has more Muslim immigrants than it needs, and some cities and towns (like Dearborn, Michigan) are so overrun by Muslims that their American character and cultures have been supplanted by an oppressive Islamic weltanschauung.  Indeed, in Hamtramck, Michigan, Muslims have seized a majority in the city council.  Sharia enclaves cannot be far behind (they have already been established in parts of Europe).  The U.S. simply does not need any more undereducated, non-English- speaking, combative Muslim refugees who are hostile to American culture and tradition, and who are largely incapable of supporting themselves and their families.  They place an oppressive burden on American citizens, with virtually no offsetting benefit.   And this entirely apart from the enormous risk of terrorist attacks and other violence posed by Muslim immigration.

                4.  Muslim Immigration is inherently low quality immigration.  Attempts to justify the entry of hordes of undesirables by highlighting the negligible percentage of Muslims aliens (e.g., physicians) who might bring a useful credential are fraudulent for the obvious reason that it is the net impact that matters.  The overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants will cause a massive drain of U.S. resources – as Europe is now experiencing to its great cost -- with no countervailing benefit.  Hordes of Muslims have entered as self-selecting refugees, and Obama is poised to open the gates to legions more.  Others enter solely by virtue of their relationship to other Muslims who are already here.  Unlike traditional immigration based on preference qualifications, these refugees and dependents are not required to meet any standard for job skill and self-sufficiency as any sane immigration system would demand.  Moreover, the certainty that a significant number of Muslim immigrants will be Sharia-compliant fanatics who are prepared either to support, or actually commit, hostile actions against Americans overwhelmingly outweighs the pathetic attempts to justify Muslim immigration with maudlin and misleading pictures of hapless children and weeping widows.

                5.  Follow Japan, not Europe.  At least one other industrialized and highly civilized democracy virtually excludes all Muslims from its borders, let alone its accepted society.  An article in the Jewish Press blog, see http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-land-without-muslims/2013/05/19/, explains how Japan is able to avoid Islamic terrorism as a "land without muslims."  Mordechai Kedar, The Land Without Muslims, Jewish Press.com (May 19, 2013).  Although Japan does not expressly ban the immigration of Muslims, its laws, regulations, social norms, traditions, and national policies render it negligible as a practical matter.  Simply put, Muslims are not welcome in Japan.  With a total population of some 130 million people, Japan has only about 30,000 to 70,000 total Muslims at the upside; the actual number is probably much lower.   And when one of the rare Muslims in Japan commits a crime, the response is ruthless and unrestrained by political correctness:  "Police stationed agents at mosques, followed individuals to their homes, obtained their names and addresses from alien registration records, and compiled databases profiling hundreds of individuals,” according to an article in the Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus.  See also "Japan Close to Muslim Immigration," http://newsl.org/2015/06/japan-closed-to-muslim-immigration-shields-culture-from-islamic-influence/.

                In brief, Mr. Trump is proposing that the United States temporarily adopt a restrictive policy that has been successfully applied in practice by the super-civilized Japanese – a country from whom the U.S. could learn much indeed with respect to maintaining law-and-order and preventing terrorism.  Japan does not have recurrent terrorist attacks; Japanese sidewalks are not blighted by oppressed women in burqas that look like walking black tents; Japanese cities are not darkened and degraded by the shadow of looming mosques and minarets; and Japan will not subordinate the interests of its own citizens and its own culture to some perverse and twisted notion that a nation is obliged to welcome and subsidize whole classes of alien immigrants whose beliefs and practices are incompatible with those of the host country.

                6.  It's all about the Koran and Sharia.  The delusional Quislings who defend increased Islamic immigration by claiming that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims" are peace-loving, civic Americans perversely ignore the most unambiguous and readily available evidence on this question.  The plain text of the Koran and the unambiguously barbaric doctrines of Sharia are the core sources of doctrine for Muslims.  They advocate violence against non-Muslims; extreme and oppressive misogyny; unrelenting intolerance; and a system of "cruel and unusual punishments" that make our penal system look like the kind of discipline inflicted by Mary Poppins or Mr. Rogers.  The mandatory Muslim doctrines of the Koran and Sharia are simply incompatible with a civilized, constitutional, democratic republic.  Admitting additional hordes of persons who, by definition, adhere to those destructive doctrines is simply inimical to the interests of the United States and its people.

                7.  It's Fury, not Fear.  The most insulting and fraudulent  argument against restricting or barring Muslim immigration is the bogus canard that Americans "should not give in to fear."  The underlying implication of this canard is that opposition to unfettered immigration by hordes of undesirable Muslim aliens is driven by an irrational and un-American fear of terrorism and violence --which, of course, is not shared by those brave leftists and liberals who support open-ended immigration. 

                Like so many mantras of the left and their media mouthpieces, this is the absolute opposite of the truth. 

               SR can personally attest that the opposition to expansive Muslim immigration he shares with many millions of Americans is based on fury, not fear.  We are furious that hordes of aliens hostile to our constitution, our civilization, and our way of life are not only being welcomed into our country, but subsidized, indulged, and accommodated as though they were deserving patriots rather than parasitic intruders.  And we are paying for it!

               On the other hand, the angry citizens of the right are the least fearful element of the population, precisely because they are well-armed, know how to use their firearms, and united by a firm resistance to any threat to the safety and security of their families.

                In fact, it is the advocates of appeasement and accommodation of the Muslim invasion who are dominated by fear and cowardice.  They are so afraid of offending or angering the Islamic movement and its transnational supporters that they abandon their most fundamental principles – like equal rights for women and homosexuals – to embrace and defend a religion that is unambiguously hostile to those principles.  Just as the poltroons of the left are afraid even to acknowledge the existence of widespread anti-white criminal violence by rampant black felons, let alone to expose and resist it, they perversely ignore Islam's hostility to the principles they purport to cherish so they will not have to muster the courage to engage it.

                                                                                                * * * *

                As these Seven Pillars demonstrate, the debate over limiting Muslim immigration to the United States should not be confused by whether one supports the candidacy of Donald Trump -- although he deserves much credit for his courage in forcefully placing the issue front and center.  Rather, straightforward considerations of national, cultural, societal, and moral self-interest demonstrate the simple sanity of halting this injurious invasion until a suitably restrictive standard can be identified and enacted.