A Warning To The West

My fellow American and European brethren, we are living in a dark age.

Our society has become, to put it bluntly, overrun with idiots, nihilists, socialists, communists, closeted terrorists, people who believe that God is a myth yet believe that sex is interchangeable, and don’t know which bathroom to use, among other things.

Many countries in Europe are being subjected to wave after wave of migrants pouring into their borders, as I have mentioned countless times before, and they are witnessing a drastic change in their culture and their beliefs.

Think about this: while more Europeans and Americans are becoming less religious (case in point: in the United States, the fastest growing religious philosophy is, ironically enough, atheism), more Muslims are entering Europe, having more children than Europeans, and spreading their religion and customs across the continent.

Meanwhile, less Europeans are having children, and here in America, women are being told to not have children nor get married, they are being told to demean themselves through the legitimization of what is basically licentious behavior, they are being told to detest men, because according to the supposedly ‘liberal’ doctrine which ‘feminists’ follow, men are evil beings who wish to enslave them.

And those who do have children are indoctrinating them with ‘gender identity’ propaganda, so as to confuse them about their sex, their sexuality, and, ultimately, about their whole being and existence.

“There is no meaning to life”, they are told; ‘There is no consequence to your actions’, ‘Good and evil are merely subjective’, ‘You were misidentified at birth’, ‘Sex is subjective’, ‘The sex you were assigned at birth is not your true sex’.

What we are seeing here is not random, this is a seemingly concerted effort to cause confusion and disorder in our society so that it can be destroyed from the inside-out, kind of like how a parasite would destroy its host from the inside.

And as it creates confusion, it begins to create doubt, which is being manifested in a whole array of ways.

In the case of gender identity, it creates the doubt of our very humanity, by reducing a person’s sex to being dictated by mere emotion, then being transformed into mere subjectivity, and not into an objective truth.

In immigration, it causes people to think that protecting their country’s borders is inhumane, which makes them develop a sense of fear that they are being racist. It is not a sense of pity towards illegal immigrants (although, to some extent, it can be attributed to that), but a fear of seeming unwelcoming and intolerant which is governing the immigration policies of many countries.

It causes people to mistake border security with hatred towards immigrants, and culminates in the governments of those countries opening the borders to people whose origin we know nothing about, bringing women and children whom we cannot be assured are related to them or were kidnapped on the way to the borders, as a way to appeal to the public’s emotions and to assure these people entry into the country.

And, no, saying that is not racist: it is the truth.

How so?

Well, can anyone truly assure me that every single person in those caravans traveling up north from South America was a completely harmless and friendly individual?

Frankly, whoever says that they can is a liar.

People are being told to open the borders to any random person who approaches their country, not knowing whether or not they are harmless, which then creates irrationality, as these people are being let in without any discernment as to what happened to them and what they did prior to getting to the borders in the first place.

So, now we have fear, confusion, and irrationality which are being used against Western civilization.

But, there’s more; and it gets worse.

The Endgame

After creating doubt in the minds of the Western citizens, confusion about their humanity through gender identity and through the dilemma of whether or not to allow illegal immigrants to cross the borders illegally into their countries, it is then when we get to the final stage of this entire situation.

We have fear being used against the West, being used to force people to feel sympathy for these migrants, while we have confusion and doubt being used to make us question our own humanity, our whole being, as well as to strip us of our morality through the practice of abortion, through the abandonment of God and religion, through the concept of gender identity, through cross-dressing children and brainwashing them to believe that their entire state of being is erroneous, meaning that they indoctrinate them to believe that they are women trapped inside men’s bodies, and men trapped inside women’s bodies.

But why is this being done?

And who is doing this?

While I cannot answer the second question, I can give you the best answer I have for the first one.

All of this is being done to manipulate the West into accepting things which, were we all grounded in reason, in our traditions and in basic morality, we would not accept under any circumstances.

If we were to go back a couple of decades and asked any regular American or European what they thought about gender identity, for example, and explained to them what it is, they would probably respond with, “What are you, crazy?”

If we did the same with the topic of open borders, many Americans would rightfully shudder with fear at the thought of not being able to secure our borders and not knowing who came in and out of the country legally or illegally.

If we asked the average American a few decades ago whether or not they believed that truth is subjective and malleable to whatever the individual wanted it to be, while violently condemning those who oppose that notion, they would have probably smacked you over the head with a newspaper.

So, what changed?

What has changed in Western culture, what is the cause of all of these symptoms?

Well, it all started when people started to stop believing in Christianity.

During the time when most people in the West believed in Christianity, we had a pretty good idea of what was good and evil.

Marriage was good, while adultery was considered one of the most evil acts on earth; murder (including abortion) was wrong and was loudly condemned by society; behavior similar to that of modern “feminists” was considered abhorrent, immoral, and disrespectful; parents dressing boys up as girls and viceversa was considered horrible parenting; and even the very notion of gender identity was unthinkable.

But then, as people abandoned Christianity and its moral values, in favor of increasing secularism and even atheism and its disregard for certain moral values, all of that changed.

And now, since they abandoned the notions of God, absolute moral good and absolute moral evil, they have been left with the task of creating something else to fill that void, since going back to absolute good and evil would make them hypocrites in the eyes of many people.

So, they have decided to fill that void with the horrors which we see today in the media and in society.

Now, let me ask you, dear readers, is this what you want to leave behind for your children after you are gone? Or is it what you want to leave for your grandchildren when you are gone?

A world without morality, without control over our own borders, where anyone can come and go from the country illegally without consequence? A world where truth is dictated by emotion, and where there is no such thing as objective truth? Where our traditions are outlawed and disregarded, while a set of dogmas which are morally abhorrent are revered and enforced?

Is that what you truly wish to leave to your children, your grandchildren, or your great-grandchildren, after you are gone?

Think about it carefully, because that is what we are seeing right now.

And it is up to us to change that.

– Francisco Rosario

Separate, But Equal

In this day and age, we hear so much about “equality”, “diversity”, “the minorities”, and things like that.

We constantly hear stories in the media about people trying to destroy some imaginary barriers which exist in American society, like, for example, when the Boy Scouts became just “The Scouts”, allowing both boys and girls in their troops, effectively erasing what made the Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts, so special and iconic.

The excuse that was given as to why dismantling the Boy Scouts was thought to be a good idea was the same excuse which European leaders gave for the nightmare that many of its citizens have had to live through: to promote “diversity”.

Needless to say, this was not a good idea, and membership in the Scouts actually went down last year.

Now, many of you may be asking, “Why would Scout membership go down, if both groups were consolidated, and people got what they wanted?”

Actually, only one group got what they wanted, the other group was pushed aside, which was the Boy Scouts.

This move may effectively kill the Scouts, if it hasn’t already.

The same could be said for many other companies, organizations, and groups which have made this idea as canonical as possible in their day to day operations.

The problem with putting girls in the Boy Scouts, or putting any person in a situation in which they do not have any business being in, is the same problem with ordaining a Muslim into the Catholic priesthood. You cannot place a Muslim in a church and expect him to worship Christ.

People want to make us believe that diversity is our strength, however, I have yet to see any recent examples of how people with almost nothing in common can achieve much.

The concept of equality for people is something that is truly something which seems quite honorable in society. Yet, that is not to say that a woman should be admitted into an all-male fraternity, but rather have the opportunity to create her own sorority.

Which is what would be called “separate but equal”.

I do not refer to this phrase with the negative racial connotations which it has carried at some point in history, I refer to it solely with the intention of illustrating this idea.

Imagine if we did not have to deal with the problem and confusion of people wondering whether men’s and women’s competitions, facilities, activities, clothing, among many other things, were “inclusive” enough for all of society.

Imagine if everyone were knowledgeable enough to distinguish between male and female, between good and bad, love and excess, reason and idiocy.

Now, slap yourself across the face, figuratively speaking, wake up and let’s do something about it.

If public schools can teach kids about Islam, for example, why not teach them about Christianity? If women can have a march dedicated to them, why don’t we create a march dedicated to men? If homosexuals can have a Gay pride parade, why can’t heterosexuals have their own parade celebrating heterosexuality?

“But a Straight Pride Parade is homophobic.”

I would say that there is more aversion towards heterosexuals than towards gays at the present moment here in America. If anyone has paid attention to how our society is promoting the deification of homosexuality and transgenderism, and the vilification of heterosexuality and Judeo-Christian values, I would call this something like “heterophobia”, or aversion towards heterosexuals.

If the LGBT+ community can have a parade celebrating the fact that they are gay, then why can’t we heterosexual men and women have a parade, or some sort of activity, celebrating our heterosexuality?

I know, it seems like a strange idea for people to do such a thing, but the same can be said for Pride Parades: why should the rest of America celebrate what should be another individual’s private decision to be gay? I do not think that we should chase that person out of the country, I just think that the fanfare for this is excessive.

If someone comes out as gay, that’s their prerogative, but we don’t need to be forced to do anything special for that person.

Ideally, we do not have to do that, but there was a case in which students were forced to go to a Gay Pride Parade, and the parents who refused to take their children to the parade were sanctioned.

And yet, the activists and lobbyists for the LGBT community complain and whine about “homophobia”, and “homophobic behavior” towards their agenda, even though they already get special attention in the media with their parades.

They urge that we celebrate people who come out as gay, yet ask that society vilify those who were gay at one point, and decided to become straight.

The same can be said about those who leave Islam, but the difference between becoming heterosexual and leaving Islam is that no one is threatened with death if they choose to become heterosexual, at least not yet.

Many activists like to talk about equality in a way that signifies that some people must give up what they have rightfully earned to suit the “needs” of other people.

Like, for example, when some black activists demand that white people give them money as a payment for “slavery reparations”, without actually working for it, or when socialists demand that the upper class citizens pay higher taxes to “achieve fairness and equality”.

Here’s an idea: why don’t the LGBT+ activists, the Black Lives Matter activists, the Islamic activists, and all such activists, just leave the rest of us sane people in peace?

Don’t demand that the rest of society bend to your demagogic will, or to fulfill your every whim while not returning the favor to those who have aided you.

You do what you want to do, but not at the expense of the rest of society. If a Christian minister is speaking at a university, let him or her speak, just as we have to let a Muslim imam speak at a public event: that is the freedom which they have. And if a person of a different religion, like a Zoroastrian, for example, doesn’t like it, then leave the premises like a normal person.

Or if the minister or priest is giving a sermon, the same would apply, because that minister or priest is there to serve a specific group of people, and if that person is not part of that group, then they can decide whether to stay or leave, without throwing a temper tantrum like a child.

This seems like such a simple idea, yet many people refuse to acknowledge it.

If I go to a French restaurant, I cannot ask the chef to prepare a German dish; if I go to a record store, I cannot ask the manager to get me a VCR tape.

So, why should this be any different?

Why should anyone have to be forced to do something that is antithetical to their occupation, their way of life, or their beliefs and philosophy?

Is it so difficult to just be separate?

– Francisco Rosario

Reason vs. Emotion

I felt compelled to write this because it basically sums up the dilemma which is being faced in society, and is a struggle which is almost as old as human history itself.

Throughout history, we have had great philosophers, theologians and leaders who have inspired future generations with their knowledge and wisdom. People like Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Aristotle, Voltaire, among many others, have been successful in being remembered by history because of their incredible knowledge and rationality.

This was in times when, to put it starkly, reason was God. So incredible was reason that many Christian theologians throughout history have believed, and many still do, that reason is the way that we encounter God, and this is the belief which I also personally hold.

Reason, however, seems to be a dangerous thing in this age of emotion, where outrage seems to govern our society. This governance through emotions of our society has a name: demagoguery.

Demagoguery is defined as “political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by rational arguments.”

We see this a lot nowadays with feminists, “Black Lives Matter” activists, Antifa, transgender activists, celebrities, etc.

It’s something along the lines of “That’s sexist!”, “That’s racist!”, “homophobic”, “xenophobic”, all that’s missing here is “arachnophobic”.

How do we see this happening in the present day?

Allow me to elaborate:

A couple of weeks ago, Democratic representative of Michigan Rashida Tlaib (pictured above) insulted Donald Trump in a heated speech, which, inevitably, drew attention and some concern about how capable she is of holding public office.

Now, this woman is in her full right to criticize the President, I’m not saying that she is not; but, this kind of emotional response seems to be more pervasive than it should be.

Try debating a feminist and I will guarantee you one thing: oftentimes, not always, that feminist will give you an emotional response, not a rational response.

This is the problem that I have with feminists: they think too much with their hearts, and not enough with their minds.

I agree that assaulting women is wrong, but so is assaulting men.

No one talks about this, at least not in the mainstream. I believe that the reason why is because of recent generalizations and stereotypes about men: they are expected to be emotionless, mindless people, who are motivated by competition, money, or, as is commonly said in such stereotype, by sex.

For this reason, and I know many people will disagree with me on this, I consider these manifestations of feminism, and their promoters, to be hypocritical.

You can’t just blurt out such incompetently emotion-driven diatribe, and not expect anyone to say anything about it.

“But, that’s sexist,” I can already hear the obvious recrimination from these feminists.

It’s not sexism, it’s called reason, something that demagogues know nothing about, since they’re clouded by emotion.

If reason is sexist, then why isn’t it considered sexist when women do the same things they complain that men do to them?

If it’s considered racist to shoot a black man in legitimate self defense, then why isn’t it considered racist when, for example, a black man vandalizes a white person’s property with a purely racial motivation?

There seems to be a double standard, a true double standard, in this situation.

That’s like saying that if a black person uses a racial epithet against a white person, it’s not racist.

Why? Because that person is black? Shouldn’t that actually be considered racist?

And if a woman does something similar to a man, it’s not sexist because surely, women can’t be sexist. Or so, feminists tell us.

In the short seventeen, almost eighteen, years that I’ve spent on this Earth so far, I have rarely heard such idiocy come out of anyone’s mouth. (And let it be known, I’ve heard a lot of idiocies come out of people’s mouths.)

Feminism, in many ways, has lost its traditional luster.

Where once stood a movement which cared about the social equality and progress of women through hard work, now lies a movement trying to mold men into women in an effort to rid the world of “toxic masculinity”.

If men were made to be more like women, I can assure you that society will collapse within a decade. I cannot begin to explain why this is a horrible idea.

If all men in America were wired to be more like women, and the Saudis suddenly invaded our country, we would be under Sharia law after 30 minutes.

To finalize this article, I ask feminists to think with your brain, don’t just go like, “oh, but this guy is looking at me weird”, and you’re dressed in a bikini at a library, or completely naked in a supermarket, expecting no one to say anything.

Of course you’re going to get looks, that’s the natural response; not because that person is a pervert, but because you’re completely naked in a supermarket.

And before any feminist goes and whines about women’s rights and sexism, I say to them “use your brain, use common sense, don’t be ignorant”.

Because screaming, whining, and giving long sermons about “women’s rights this” and “women’s rights that” doesn’t really help your case, and does you no good in the real world.

– Francisco Rosario

The Social Justice Lie

I have heard a lot of discussion around the concept of “gender identity” which is this sort of mythical concept (because, it is mythical) that the so called “Social Justice Warriors” seem so fond of.

It consists of, supposedly, being able to switch between one gender to another, in the same way that someone would change clothes repeatedly.

And these people seem to have all sorts of terms, like transgender, “gender non-conforming”, and “pansexual”, for what is basically the same thing.

There seems to be more terms for this sort of thing flying around the media that I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point someone published a lexicon enumerating all these gender identity terms and their meanings. And they’d probably keep expanding it throughout the years because of all the nonsense that these “Social Justice Warriors” say and do to try to make every aspect of life in America as politically correct as humanly possible.

This is the same political correctness which infects our universities, our news media, and even our daily entertainment (which is no surprise for anyone who’s seen MacGyver, which secretly promoted gun control, many people say). This sort of political correctness has become such a problem that YouTube has sometimes even banned conservative news outlets and personalities on its platform, the same way that some universities have restricted conservative speakers from being able to speak on their campuses.

Some say that this is in order to pursue and maintain peace and what leftists call “Social Justice”, which is just a fancier way of saying “kicking out anyone that the left doesn’t agree with”.

Can anyone even define what “Social Justice” is?

It seems like a term which has been used and thrown around with a variety of meanings and purposes. But my best definition for this term in the present day in America is basically barring any opposing views in order to maintain these fallacies of being able to switch from one nonexistent gender to another, and supposedly being able to create a safer and nonviolent society without guns to keep our children safe, while at the same time donating to Planned Parenthood.

Does anyone else see the irony in that?

We want to keep our children safe from potentially being murdered, and many of us instead of advocating for arming our school guards, teachers, janitors, and assistants, insist on other “alternatives” to arming our teachers instead of implementing the only logical solution for this: arming our teachers.

We have allowed ourselves to give in to political correctness, and blind ourselves from the obvious: that there is no way to protect ourselves from assault without any means of defense; that there are no more than two genders; and, especially, that no matter what we as conservatives do, the other end of the spectrum will always try to find a small fault in what we believe, but will insist on remaining blind to what is not “politicking”, but simple logic.

“Social Justice”, then, is the denial of all logical fact and reason, and its replacement with ignorance, mediocrity, stupidity, and censorship.

It is not “justice”, nor is it “impartial”, or even “logical” for that matter. It is a complete denial of American ideals, a complete disregard for even the most simple facts, and exchanged for “safe spaces” and political correctness.

And it’s this political correctness which has made it almost a death sentence for anyone who identifies as a conservative to try and debate this leftist ideology; it has become a crime to express any viewpoint contrary to theirs, almost as a form of religious heresy. And it is a form of heresy, in their opinion, to say or do anything contrary to their ideology.

I realize that my expressions here might be considered controversial for anyone who thinks differently than me; yet I can’t ignore this, and it bothers me that we as Americans, as rational human beings, have become so ignorant of these facts that we have just decided to ignore the flawed logic of these SJW activists.

But I challenge them to think rationally about their causes, and to challenge some of these leftist dogmas which they preach.

To challenge this idea of group identity (or “groupthink”, as many call it), this idea of collectivism.

It is the only way for us to defend our fundamental ideals; the same ideals which America was founded upon, and which are now threatened by these politically correct groups and individuals.

And all because of some nonsense gender pronouns, increasingly socialist ideals and fascistic tactics of censorship aimed at conservatives, and asking for ineffective gun control laws, which are going to do more bad than good. Look at Chicago, for example, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in America, and is one of the leading cities subject to gun violence in America.

What more proof do you need before you realize that, maybe, gun control is not the solution?

I won’t go into detail on the subject of gun control, due to the fact that I’ve already written extensively about this topic on another occasion.

But it seems that we are entering a new era of identitarianism, and censorship, the likes of which have only been seen in communist countries, in Nazi Germany, and the “alt-right”.

Here’s my conclusion:

For all of those who identify as neither a male or female, or both, or something in between, don’t wait for anyone to accept you; only you can accept what you are.

I may not agree with what you identify as, or what you believe, but I can’t stop you from doing as you wish with your life.

However, I can tell you that forcing everyone to accept what you are is not being “inclusive”, regardless of what you may have been told.

It is narcissism.

It is not “gender”, as there are only two. It is not “biology”, as you can’t really change that.

It is merely a personal perspective, not a concrete scientific fact.

That is what these “Social Justice Warriors” conveniently ignore.

And we can’t allow ourselves to be trapped by their ignorance.

The Hidden Truth: Planned Parenthood and Eugenics

Planned Parenthood has tried to paint itself as an organization which prides itself on providing women’s healthcare and health services, with a “mission” to champion women’s rights. Many feminists praise Planned Parenthood and seem to believe that one of those indisputable “rights” for many women is the “right” to be able to terminate a pregnancy at will.

(Or, as they like to put it, “My Body, My Choice”. The same thing, just in more elegant words.).

The pro-choice community will argue that the fetus has no value while still at its early stages of development (before the first trimester). However, a moral argument would be that, while the fetus is still in development, be it 3 weeks or 3 months of pregnancy, it still counts as a human life with human sentience. And just as important, the ability to feel pain just as any living being outside of the womb.

Here’s a fact that many pro-choice activists and even Planned Parenthood itself seem to be conveniently forgetting or leaving out on purpose: the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was an avid supporter of eugenics.

What is Eugenics?

Eugenics was a pseudo-scientific belief which stated that people who had certain “good” physical characteristics should breed in order to pass on those characteristics to their children, and that those who lacked them should not, in order to create a “perfect” ethnic group.

If this sounds familiar to you, that is because Eugenics was the movement which most notably served as inspiration for the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Sanger even wanted to restrict immigration in the United States.

If this doesn’t convince you, here’s a passage from a speech called “My Way To Peace” by Margaret Sanger:

“The main objects of the Population Congress would be:[…] keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred from entrance by the Immigration Laws of 1924.”

But that’s not all, here’s what she said about how to make that happen:

“Open the gates of the U.S.A. to those countries whose inhabitants have the inherent talents and national characteristics desirable, eliminating entirely those countries whose subjects have already been difficult to assimilate.”

So, basically what she wanted was to effectively ban immigration from certain countries, and sterilize certain ethnic groups in America.

And, if that didn’t work, she had another idea, which was basically forced labor:

There would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

So, to put it in a simpler way, Planned Parenthood’s original mission was to effectively reduce the number of people in certain ethnic groups within America. Most notably, those with “undesirable” traits. And if that didn’t work, just send them into forced labor camps for the rest of their lives.

Now that I have given you the facts, here’s my perspective on the subject:

I have no problem with women who want to feel good about themselves (or men, for that matter), people who believe that they can do anything that they want if they put forth any effort in doing so.

If you want to pursue a career in science, economics or any other field, you may do so. If you want to be an actor or actress, go for it.

I frankly don’t think that those life choices are mine or anyone else’s to judge.

But if those decisions involve taking a life, whether in the womb, out in the world, or even in a Petri dish for that matter, then I will firmly oppose.

Now, some will say something like “Oh, you’re just a mysogynist”, or “you’re a sexist, and part of the patriarchy “.

No, I’m just not in favor of taking a life, neither before nor after conception. Especially not when it’s in regards to the life of a child; if that was in a military campaign, you would be charged and arrested as a war criminal.

And those who are in favor of abortion and against gun rights and want to protect other American citizens are, in my opinion, either ill-informed or just hypocrites.

Why?

Because we use guns to protect other people and ourselves from assault, robbery, etc. We use them to preserve our lives and other people’s lives.

Although, yes, various criminals do get their hands on them, but that’s a logical fact; crime will continue to exist whether or not laws exist, what makes it different is that we at least have a chance of defending ourselves and preventing more of these crimes as long as we’re able to carry weapons to do so.

But, abortion serves no beneficial purpose; in fact, many women have been reported to suffer various health complications after having abortions.

Originally, my theory was that Planned Parenthood and Eugenics had some sort of connection at some point. As if the company was some sort of disguise for Eugenics research: and I was correct, in a certain sense.

And I now share these results with you, the reader.

I encourage everyone reading this to share this with their friends and family, and spread this unspoken truth about Planned Parenthood.

I have done my part, now I leave the rest to my fellow readers; which is to spread this message.

The Debate: Gun Control or Self-Control?

It seems that people on the left have tried to gain some sort of leverage over the gun control argument for almost two months now; and because of it tensions regarding this issue have become some sort of a hotbed for political debate and controversy.

But is it logical to ban semi-automatic guns in the United States?

I think not, because doing so would infringe upon the rights granted to American citizens by the Constitution, specifically, the Second Amendment, which states that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed.

Plus, the leftist idea that semiautomatic guns don’t form part of what the founding fathers had referred to in the Constitution is based on absolutely nothing, and I can prove it.

First of all, what sort of weaponry could have possibly existed which could have been even remotely similar to the semi automatic weapons which these leftists are rioting against?

Well, let’s start with the Belton Flintlock.

The Belton Flintlock was actually a design for a repeating flintlock using superposed loads, which was conceived by Joseph Belton, a Philadelphia resident, some time prior to 1777.

To further add to this claim, Belton wrote that his musket could fire eight rounds with one loading, and that he could support his claims “by experimental proof”.

In today’s standards, this would count as a semi-automatic gun, due to the gun having been designed to use superposed loads, meaning that the Belton could fire several shots from a single barrel without reloading.

However, this was just a design for a rifle and never really went into production.

But, there was another design, which is actually regarded as the first successful design for a semi automatic rifle. An Austrian-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher is attributed with creating the first successful design in 1885. He also created various semi automatic pistols including the Mannlicher M1894, the Model 93, Model 85, the Model 95, the Model 1900, the Model 1905, etc.

Listen, I could go on about all the different types of guns and their history, and the different ways in which David Hogg, CNN, the left, and gun control activists are both wrong and horribly ill informed, but that’s not the point.

I have a lot of questions about gun control, specifically for David Hogg; for example, how exactly is it going to help reduce crime?

How does the left propose that we as citizens, defend ourselves? Our families? Our properties? And reduce violence and murder in the United States, if we don’t have any means of self defense or “self-preservation” to defend ourselves, our families and our properties with?

And, honestly, I can’t believe the hypocrisy of many leftists.

Because they can talk all they want about wanting to ban guns or take them away, but they know all too well that when they’re in trouble, the first ones they call to get them out of trouble are the cops (who, by the way, carry guns).

Another point of confusion and utter hypocrisy is the fact that it wants to restrict guns because “guns kill people”, and how it wants to save more people by doing so, yet we see how often and how quick it is to defend people who are pro-choice for abortion; which I don’t know if you’re aware of, but it is literally killing unborn children for no other reason than because those people weren’t smart enough to use protection.

Also, speaking of which, I want to take a moment to thank Nebraska for their decision regarding Planned Parenthood in the state, you guys are the best.

(Read this article to find out more)

Also, according to Steven Crowder, rifle murders have actually seen a decline since the Clinton assault weapons ban had expired. (Check out the video at this link here for this and more facts).

Believe what you will, if you’re for or against gun control; I’ll leave that for each and every one of you to decide for yourselves.

Obviously, I can’t get everyone to agree with me; I understand that there are lots of people who feel strongly about gun violence and feel as if gun control is the only solution to this longstanding problem, and there are probably lots of people reading this who may have lost someone to gun violence, whether it was at war, being ambushed, or for any other reason. I really do understand the emotions of grief that you must be feeling, though I have, to my knowledge, not lost anyone due to gun violence.

I also understand that grief makes people do desperate things.

But gun control is simply not the solution; like I said, people are still going to get there hands on different weapons one way or another, not just guns.

Sadly, there are just as many ways to make weapons out of ordinary objects, quoting one of my earlier articles, “as there are different religions “.

The solution here is not gun control, okay?

It’s not blacklisting the NRA or the conservatives, or those who stand up for their Second Amendment rights, the solution here is self control. The solution here is to start giving support to people who may be suffering from bullying, depression, loneliness, toxic relationships, or even lack of paternal or maternal figures, which have been considered by many as possible motives behind school shootings.

As Mike Rowe said recently about the possible cause for school shootings, “We are suffering from an epidemic of fatherlessness”. Case in point, Nikolas Cruz, responsible for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. In the case of bullying, the Columbine School Shooting should come to mind.

I want everyone to think about this: imagine what some people around you, be it your friends or a family member, a classmate, or even a complete stranger, may feel on a daily basis, then put yourself in their position, and think twice before you do or say something you may regret.

Understanding, that is what we really need, not gun control.

As for those who are responsible for having bullied Nikolas Cruz, you are the real criminals in all of this. If it weren’t because of your continuous harassment and mistreatment of that young man, this tragedy would’ve been prevented, but you ignored that possibility and are now paying the price.

As for David Hogg, from teenager to teenager, I understand that you were a survivor of this shooting, but that doesn’t qualify you to advocate for gun control, to take away people’s Second Amendment rights, by letting your emotions get in the way of reason inside of a very important issue.

Frankly, it doesn’t even make you a gun expert, either.

Sadly, you’ve made the closest thing to a real life Faustian deal that I’ve ever seen. You sold your soul to these leftist activists who really don’t care about you, and all they want is to push their anti-gun agenda and try to potentially disarm our society, and leave everyone defenseless in their own homes.

Theoretical situation: What if our government one day decided to basically turn against the people? Some of you may have undoubtedly thought about this. The Second Amendment was put in place so that people could defend themselves if there was an attack, such as shootings, invasions from foreign countries, and, yes, even in the case that the government turned against the people. This is explicitly stated in that Amendment; “being necessary to the security of a free state”.

Without guns, we would be defenseless, and America as we know today it would cease to be a free state.

So, by taking away the people’s right to bear arms, we would be defenseless from attacks.

And America as we know it today would probably even cease to exist if given the circumstances that we enter another conflict with another country or even if we enter another World War.

So, gun control activists, be very careful with what you wish for.

It could cost us even more lives than those in Parkland.

What is wrong with society?

Listen, I’m going to be completely honest with you: as far as I’ve seen, in the news and in social media, some people just don’t seem to have a brain.

Why? Because people these days are doing things that, in my opinion, are just irritating, stupid, irrational, potentially deadly. The list goes on and on and on. Take for example, the Tide Pod challenge, in which the subject, who doesn’t deserve to even be called a human being, actually bites down on a Tide Pod and just see what happens.

I know what’s going to happen: you’re going to die if you don’t get your stomach pumped, idiots.

It’s not just the challenges in social media, like the Ice Bucket challenge, the Cinnamon challenge, the Blue Whale challenge, etc.

Frankly, there are about as many dumb challenges circulating around the Internet as there are different religious beliefs in the world, if not more.

And if you think about it, that’s what social media has been turned into these days, one big, stupid, meaningless religion, with about as many followers as any actual religion.

I know that saying this is kind of ironic, given that this blog counts as social media. But here’s the difference, one is constructive and another is destructive. Guess which is which. But here’s the thing: it’s not only the challenges in social media, it’s also the rhetoric used in social media. Now, there are people who are using their freedom of speech to do ridiculous, although sometimes funny, things.

For example, when the White House had celebrated Donald Trump’s first year as president of the United States, there were people around the country who, for some reason, decided to commemorate the anniversary by screaming at the sky in protest.

Well, at least they stopped doing ridiculous things for a little while. I mean, that must have taken a lot of air from them. And, at least, in a very tense environment, some of us got a few laughs out of it.

Some completely terrible things, including organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Antifa, have grown stronger because of social media and gaining followers and support through it.

Social media is supposed to be constructive, but is instead destroying how some people think, although sometimes it’s not social media’s fault, sometimes people are raised in different ways, thought to think differently, in a way which despises other human beings, such as the KKK, or the Hitler Youth.

It all depends on how some people are raised, sadly. Sometimes, you can’t blame someone for how they act, if that’s the way that they were raised, because that is the environment they grew up in.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that some people do some terrible things to preserve something from an older time, even if what they are trying to preserve is something equally terrible.

Let me end this post saying one last thing:

Society, you used to be an innovator, a great vessel for change, as well as knowledge and enlightenment.

My question is this:

What happened?

If there’s anything you’d like to comment related to this, feel free to do so on the comments section. I look forward to hearing from the fellow readers.

The Patriot Problem

Fellow readers, as I said in my post, “A Call for Peace and Unity“, there needs to be something we can do to preserve peace around the world. And as I have said before, one of the reasons for the world’s current state is one which we as Americans treasure as much as other countries, if not more.

What I am talking about is patriotism; treasured by some, ignored by others.

Where I differ from other people in America is that I don’t see the importance of this excessive love for this country; as philosopher John Locke had stated we are all born with natural rights, which are “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”, but this seems to be different in terms of patriotism.

There are occasions where patriotism seems to border on nationalism, which is the hatred of other countries in order to boost one’s own; many people throughout history, and nowadays, are guilty of doing so.

Take as an example former President of the United States, Andrew Jackson, who was responsible for the “Trail of Tears“, one of the most disgusting shows of disrespect, racism, pride and, above all, nationalism.

He said he was for the common man, yet he only meant common white men.

Then there’s Francisco Franco, dictator of Spain under the Spanish Nationalist Party.

And then there’s Adolf Hitler leader of the Nazi Party, which was responsible for the Holocaust, one of the worst crimes against humanity in history. Also, Benito Mussolini, leader of the Italian Fascist Party, who killed those who thought differently, who forced young men to serve this malign cause, known as nationalism.

A more recent example of nationalism happened back in 2017 here in United States, also known as the “Unite the Right” movement, which was a movement protesting the removal of Confederate monuments, made up of white nationalists, KKK members, and Neo-Nazis.

My point is that we as Americans, and as human beings in general, have tried to push our ideals, our beliefs against others for centuries.

A form of this triumphalist ideology is shown in the Inquisition, and the Crusades, where the Templar soldiers and Inquisitors tried to destroy those who thought differently in order to protect a divisive and violent agenda.

In the present day, however, the solution lies in the hands of President Trump. He has the power to solve this problem and steer the country away from this problem in a peaceful manner, but sadly, seeing what the world has turned into in the present day, that will not be an easy task any time soon. And it seems painful for me to say that, but there’s no disguising the clear truth.

The problem lies in our pride, which gets in the way, and gets us in trouble, this time being no exception.

I am sorry if this offends anyone who sees the Inquisition or the Crusades as just another moment in history like any other, or as an unimportant moment in history, but if you just ignore this horrible part of history, and say that this is meaningless and that it doesn’t matter, then you, my friend, are part of this problem.

You are ignoring this and by doing so you are a part of the problem and not the solution.

I say that we must look at other people not by nationality, religion, race, nor gender, but as people: living, breathing human beings on this Earth.

We have let ourselves be guided by something as meaningless as nationality, race, religion, and culture; and we have let it rule us, and we are now paying the consequences.

I don’t see myself as a patriot, I am more of a loyalist, and my cause is the general peace and wellbeing of this world, and the pursuit of knowledge and creativity, above any flag, creed, ideology or politician.

Sadly, the knowledge we humans today are in possession of is being used for twisted means such as war and the potential destruction of other nations, and that is shameful!

Albert Einstein formulated the theory of energy-mass equivalence, and called it his “one great mistake”, because it created the atomic bomb, and all other nuclear weaponry after it, which is not what he wanted. He saw what it did in the 1940s, imagine what he would do if he saw what was happening in the present day.

I think that patriotism explains a lot of the problems that we as Americans have gotten ourselves into: the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the Civil War, World War 2, Pearl Harbor, the Mexican-American War.

My question is: If patriotism and pride, and excessive love for a country and an ideology is the problem that has gotten humanity into a terrible state of fear, hate and ignorance, then what is the solution?

“The Difference Between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does , and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does ; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war” – Sydney J, Harris

Think about it.

If this is the problem that started it all, then we must stop this problem from getting worse. We must end this pride, this hate, and get to work fixing the problem we have created in some other way. We must all work together to solve this issue as real United Nations. Make this a reality and not just a namesake.

I will be posting again soon.

If you share my feelings on the subject, or have a different opinion on the matter, let me know why in the comments section.

Hatred, pride and nationalism are driving us to the brink of warfare

For the past couple of years, if not centuries, the world has been under constant threat of terror brought on by fanaticism, pride, and indifference. This is not the fault of one group, as many would like you to believe. This is not the fault of any religious group, any organization, any single country: it is the fault of everyone.

We have fallen into this state because of those who call themselves heroes, who call themselves friends, and saviors, and go ahead and destroy and kill those who think differently, who believe something different. Take as an example the Inquisition, and other persecutions during the Medieval period, which persecuted the Jewish and Muslim, or Unconverted Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, for nothing other that indifference, pride, and fanaticism. This not only goes for religion, but for government, as well.

The world has gone and reverted to a state of bloodshed, nationalism, pride, ignorance, fanaticism, triumphalism.  We have reverted to a mentality of hatred and pride for centuries.  Look at yourselves, look at what’s happening in this world, and think of what can be done. We must do whatever is in our power to fix this, before it’s too late.  We are, inevitably, in the brink of war. And if there is anything in our power that we may have done to stop it, we should’ve. But it’s too late, I believe.

It is because of those who call themselves patriots, defenders of their country, of their faith, as well as the governments who have murdered those who think differently that we have descended into this chaos, because of misguided efforts from these patriots.

These patriots, these leaders, those who thought to be carrying out the will of God, or thought themselves to be God, have started this, a long time ago, and we are the ones who can stop this. Their pride has spread like a terrible disease, and we are the ones who have the power to stop this.

Think about this, and you will see that this is the only way to preserve peace in the world. End the indifference, the pride, the nationalism, and the fanaticism. Do this, before it’s too late.

And if we have to go to war, do so for the general peace of the world, not for your own country.

If you have any comments or questions, feel free to leave some on this page.

Why “White Nationalism” Doesn’t Exist

Those who have been paying attention to the news since Donald Trump took office in 2017 will have noticed that some news anchors, celebrities, other politicians, among many others, have used a variety of epithets to describe him and his supporters.

Terms like “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “Islamophobic”, and another term that many of those people are fond of using to describe and discredit Trump and his supporters, “white nationalists”.

It is on this last term which I will focus on.

I bring this up because a former congressman by the name of Joe Walsh accused Trump of espousing this idea.

Let us analyze and dissect this term.

Nationalism is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as: loyalty and devotion to a nation. It is the synonym for patriotism.

If nationalism is loyalty to a nation, and requires a national identity, which is to say, a common homeland, then what is “white nationalism”?

White Nationalism is defined as “a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.”

There are, of course, various fallacies in the fictional concept of “white nationalism”.

1. Being white is considered an ethnicity, not a nationality

Ethnicity (genetic composition) and nationality (country of birth) are two completely different concepts.

Being white, or Caucasian, is determined by DNA; it is not determined by your place of birth.

The place of birth would be England, Italy, the United States, Scotland, just to name a few. Your ethnicity could be Caucasian, black, Asian, etc., irrespective of place of birth.

2. There is no such thing as a “white nation”.

There are nations that have a white majority, but the citizens are not known as “whites”.

The citizens are known as, for example, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Norwegians, etc. The citizens are not referred to as whites, hence, there is not a “white national identity”.

Does national identity come from race alone?

The answer is a resounding “NO”.

National identity is derived from the people’s shared traditions and values, regardless of their racial composition.

Let’s say, for example, a white Irish couple celebrate a certain national holiday.

Is the couple’s celebration of the holiday dependent on their race?

The answer is also NO. Anyone in Ireland can celebrate the national festivities, regardless of race. It doesn’t matter if they are of African descent, Indian descent, Jewish descent, etc.

The holiday is celebrated because of tradition, not because of a genetic predisposition.

So, therefore, a white nation is nonexistent because of this.

3. The concept implies that the country’s values can only be appreciated by a certain race or ethnicity.

This, of course, is false. Can the values of England only be appreciated by white English people?

Absolutely not. They can be appreciated regardless of whether one is white, black, of Israeli descent, of Japanese descent, of Vietnamese descent, or of Russian descent, to name a few.

Like I said, these are different ethnic groups that could share a similar national identity.

The concept of white nationalism, and of a white national identity, is a flawed one, nor is it worthy of serious attention when one uses this misleading term as if it were a serious concept.

It is not serious, it is what is known as an “ad hominem”, or a personal attack used purely to discredit one’s opponents.

To put it simply, white nationalism does not exist, it is merely an illogical argument and insult; the proper term is “white supremacy“, and even the rationale of using this as an argument against someone, like Donald Trump, is questionable.

It is used when one runs out of logical arguments and must resort to emotional appeal.

It is what many politicians and celebrities have done to slander President Trump in order to further their careers and gain publicity.

These emotional appeals must be taken with caution, or else we will all fall into a trap which will be very hard to get out of.

And none of us want that.

The way to prevent this from happening is simple: THINK LOGICALLY.

Such a simple solution for a rather complex problem.

– Francisco Rosario

“But, It Is God’s Will”; Said a Man Who Didn’t Care for Him

(Pictured above: the Peace Cross, a memorial to the soldiers of the First World War in Bladensburg, Maryland)

Dear readers, has anyone noticed that there are many people that are trying to change (or, even worse, erase) Christianity to suit the modern times?

“It is antiquated”, they say. “Forget God, it is an idea from the Dark Ages. Man can do just fine without some imaginary being in the sky.”

Yet, it is the same people that claim that God does not exist that are so intent on changing the Church. It is they who try to lecture Christians, whether it is Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons, etc., on how to live and pursue their faith.

“The church and the state should be separate”, said the same person who is intent on ridding Christian monuments from the public square to build an abortion clinic, whose service are paid by the taxpayers.

“There should be tolerance and equality among the people of different faiths,” said the same person who tries to take Christians out of their own churches to turn them into mosques.

And, my personal favorite, “It is the duty of Christians to take in illegal immigrants”, said the same person who is unwilling to take them in, and is now lecturing us on our Christian duties, when that person doesn’t even respect Christianity.

I honestly don’t understand how these people can sleep at night.

Where am I going with this?

It is laughable that people who don’t respect Christianity, who urinate on crosses, desecrate churches, burn Bibles, vandalize the sculptures and architecture created by the faithful various centuries ago, try and lecture us on tolerance, on how to live our lives, and how we should live and practice our faith.

They try and preach tolerance towards other faiths, yet they ignore the Christians (mostly Catholics, but also many Protestants, as well ) who are being persecuted and murdered in the Middle East or in Communist countries, purely because of their faith.

They try to change the doctrine of the Church into an attitude of “everything is valid”, except that of the Church itself.

So, forgive me if I’m a little skeptical of someone who tries to preach “tolerance” towards other religions, yet insult Christianity as “antiquated”, “discriminatory”, “sexist”, etc.

Most of these people that I’ve seen preaching this idea of false tolerance to Christians are showing exactly that: false tolerance.

It is not called tolerance if someone denies a person something because that person is a Christian, or if they only wish for Christians to change and ask nothing of those of different faiths.

It is not tolerance if you refer to a Muslim imam in a respectful manner, yet you call any priest that you see a pedophile, a murderer, an Inquisitor, etc.

And those who do such a thing ask for our respect.

Now, how can I respect someone who claims to love all people, yet chooses to show hatred towards Christians?

That is not being “tolerant”. That is being a hypocrite.

That is to be ignorant of the faith and the people that you condemn.

If you truly wish to be “tolerant”, then acknowledge the persecution of Christians in the Middle East.

If you truly wish for the church and state to be separate, then tell the governments in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, among others, to stop persecuting those who wish to practice their religion in peace.

And, if you’re so worried about illegal immigrants who are coming into America, and you believe that they should be entitled to the same benefits as legal citizens and immigrants, and tell us to accept them into our homes, why don’t you take them into your home, too?

Don’t tell the rest of us what to do, if you can’t bring yourself to do the same.

The biggest problems, and the biggest sins in modern times, are ignorance and hypocrisy.

And what is ironic is that sometimes those most guilty of them, are those who don’t believe that sin exists.

-Francisco Rosario

Why Transgenderism is Child Abuse

The concept and ideology of transgenderism has been promoted for some time now as an alternative lifestyle. It has somehow become fashionable now to undergo a surgery to pretend that you are a woman or a man, therefore adding a layer of confusion and uncertainty to that person’s mind. It has also become popular to follow such a mad charade to gain the admiration of a group of people who don’t even know which bathroom to use.

This whole situation with transgenderism is ridiculous, as I’m sure any normal person would agree. However, this situation turns dark and macabre when people involve children in this “alternative lifestyle”, convincing them to undergo surgery to “change” their sex, dress up as the opposite sex, and act like the opposite sex. I consider these acts of brainwashing a kid into believing that he or she is of the opposite sex to be a form of child abuse, most strictly in the psychological sense.

Some may undoubtedly claim that this is an affront against the child’s wishes, but the least that a healthy four year old boy is thinking about is, “Darn, I think I may wear a purple dress to preschool today.”

And if he did, it would be because some idiot thought that it would be a good idea to mess with his mind.

The sad thing about this whole type of situation is that the person at fault in such a situation is not the child. Heck, it’s not even the “psychologist” who “diagnosed” the child as transgender.

In the end, the parents are the ones to blame in this situation, as has been demonstrated various times before. It is not the child who’s at fault, because he or she doesn’t know better, it’s not the psychologist, it’s the parents who were, and I cannot stress this enough, stupid enough to actually go along with this act and ruin this kid’s life completely.

I realized a short time before writing this article that children today are facing a tremendous problem: there are children who are being aborted because, supposedly, the woman has decided that the child in the womb is not human, and the children who do come into this world are being fed transgender propaganda in an attempt to dehumanize them and turn them into the atrocities we see now in the media.

And many of these women who are aborting these children, frankly, should not even be allowed to breed if what they plan to do is to brainwash their children into believing the same atrocities as others have done to children. It doesn’t matter whether they are parents, psychologists, teachers, etc., all sorts of people are responsible for this brainwashing and child abuse.

But why do I say that transgenderism is child abuse?

That is pretty simple: because how else can we describe the act of telling your child that he or she is not a boy or a girl, forcing the child to dress up in the clothes of the opposite sex, or partake in the activities of the opposite sex, and convincing them that this is their true identity?

Allow me to reiterate this: the parents who willingly consented to have their children undergo this horrific treatment, and ultimately ruined these children’s lives, are either: a) abusive; b) idiots; or a combination of the two.

I remember that parents used to discipline their children when they misbehaved, but who disciplines the parents who force their child, or allow their child to undergo such treatment, in the misguided attempt to make their child happy?

Children should be happy, and that is why allowing them to undergo “sex change” therapy is a horrible idea, and that is why any parent that permits such an unethical practice to take place was not meant to have their child in the first place, because they are oblivious to the damage that they are causing to that child, and will cause for that child in the future.

– Francisco Rosario

My Thoughts on Immigration

I have referenced the topic of immigration in various articles, and have dedicated an entire article to the topic; yet, I felt that I needed to write this article for some reason.

I wanted to set the record straight, so to speak, about my personal thoughts on the topic of immigration. Of course, I am aware that the topic of immigration is incredibly complex and must be looked at from various angles, and that many people have differing views and opinions on the subject, but this is merely my opinion on the topic.

Immigration. Everyone in the media, in entertainment and in politics has an opinion about it, and it is predominantly that of the “open borders” philosophy, meaning that anyone can come in and out of the country as they please, regardless of legal status. They say that illegal immigrants should be entitled to various services, such as healthcare, housing, etc., yet there are those who are living in America legally and have a difficult time obtaining these services.

It is like saying that a military veteran, for example, needs urgent medical care. However, let’s assume that Veteran’s Affairs has put him or her on a waiting list to obtain proper medical care and has to wait for, let’s say, six months; yet, another person manages to receive this aid, and more, in less time.

Assume that this person is also an illegal immigrant.

I am not saying that illegal immigrants are all bad people, nor that they are criminals, but I am saying that doing such a thing is an affront, and one of a very high degree.

Whoever wants to come into this country must do so like other nations would want us to cross their borders: legally.

I can comprehend that people want to help illegal immigrants, but that does not mean that we should be enabling them to cross the border illegally, as has been done with the migrant caravans.

It seems very disgusting and dishonest that many politicians and many media outlets criticize President Trump for his stance on immigration, yet offer nothing in terms of actual, tangible solutions; the only solution that they offer (that is, if you can even call it a solution) is to just neglect to secure our borders at all, and let illegal immigrants come in and out of the country as many times as they wish.

This ‘solution’ is rather problematic because of one question: how can you assure me that there are no criminals inside those caravans of illegal migrants coming into our country? That there are no rapists, no terrorists, no drug traffickers, or no human traffickers embedded in the caravans?

That’s the problem: you cannot assure me that.

Some will ask this rather naïve question: “But what about the children in the caravans?”

That, I believe, is a way to play with the public’s emotions.

Has anyone noticed that, in many pictures and in footage of the migrant caravans, the women and children are always shown in the front?

For example, here.

Also, here:

Let’s not forget this one:

What is the pattern here?

Women and children in the front of the pictures.

Maybe they are not at the front of the caravans, but those are the images that people most associate with the caravans. And the problem is that since these pictures have such a large impact and emotionally manipulate many people who see them, it is likely that many criminals will take advantage of this and stay in the hidden areas of these caravans so that they can be admitted into the country in a covert manner.

Even the staunchest ‘open borders’ activists and supporters would be forced to admit that they cannot be sure that everyone in the caravans is a harmless individual, if they were truly honest with themselves.

Many of those who espouse this idea think too much with their hearts and not enough with their brains. Because if they did think enough with their brains, they would understand the ramifications of allowing anyone into the country illegally.

Many of those who entertain the notion of open borders think only in the short term, how this would work after 3 months, 4 months, 5 months.

But what about in the long term?

3 years? 6 years? 9 years? Or what about 10 years from now?

They only think about allowing these migrants in, and not about what happens after they are let in: how will they affect states socially or economically, in the long term? How will our culture change? Will we have something similar to Europe, in terms of our culture changing, due to mass migration? Will we end up in a political situation similar to that of Europe due to mass migration?

Not many people who support open borders have any logical nor reasonable answer to these questions, assuming that any of them do.

Many of them are fueled by nothing other than emotion, seeing it as if it were America’s ‘duty’ to take in as many illegal immigrants as humanly possible; some, like politicians, are fueled by a lust for power.

Many politicians, like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cory Booker, and others, are looking to exploit this opportunity by attempting to give them all citizenship. This may give them the opportunity to portray themselves as saviors, as “defenders of the defenseless”, so to speak.

And once it is over with, they will forget all about them, until the next election, and then the next one, and so forth.

How can I be sure?

Because that is how politics works.

One must find topics or causes that resonate with the voters in order to gain votes; and if you cannot do that, then you are wasting your time. And since immigration is a particularly important topic, many politicians have decided to use that as a way to catapult themselves into the public arena.

I cannot blame them for wanting to use this topic to gain a fighting chance in the elections, since it is an issue that is discussed and debated about consistently in America.

But, due to the reasons already mentioned, this could also cause anyone who runs on immigration as their political platform to shoot themselves in the foot, figuratively speaking.

This is because, since the topic of immigration is quite complex and delicate, any political misstep in this regard could be quite fatal, and many people know this.

Trump himself knows this, he ran on an immigration campaign, and it worked out in his favor. Many people voted for him because of the issue of immigration.

Now, his opponents are seeking to take advantage of that topic in order to win.

Whether or not it works out for them remains to be seen.

– Francisco Rosario

Traitors Not Allowed!

Pictured above: Hoda Muthana (the traitor).

I have followed the story of Hoda Muthana (pictured above), an American Muslim woman who joined ISIS, and now wishes to come back. She married an ISIS soldier who then died in battle, and now has a child.

She claims that what she did was a teenage indiscretion, yet I have never heard of any teenage indiscretion on the level of joining ISIS. A teenage indiscretion would be getting caught drinking alcohol by your parents, getting a tattoo without your parents’ approval, or stealing your parents’ car to go to a party.

Joining ISIS is not a “teenage indiscretion”, it is an act of treason and warrants an automatic death sentence.

In an interview on ABC News, she said that President Trump should “study the legal system”, because “she has papers”. So, I did like Glenn Beck said and asked myself “which legal system is she talking about?”

She obviously cannot be referring to the American legal system.

Under article 3 of the American Constitution:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

And if we take 18 U.S. Code Section 2381 into account, then Hoda Muthana is:

[…] guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

On the news, she has appeared to have regretted her decision to join ISIS, but, frankly, appearances can deceive, in my opinion.

I, personally, don’t believe her.

Now, before you call me “Islamophobic”, “racist”, or “sexist”, let me explain.

If she truly did regret her decision, then explain why she decided to stay with ISIS for almost five years, since 2014?

If she was just doing some ‘harmless cheerleading’ for the Islamic State, then explain this tweet from Muthana in 2015:

“Americans wake up! Men and women altogether. You have much to do while you live under our greatest enemy, enough of your sleeping! Go on drive-bys and spill all of their blood, or rent a big truck and drive all over them. Veterans, Patriot, Memorial etc Day parades..go on drive by’s + spill all of their blood or rent a big truck n drive all over them. Kill them.”

This is just one of the various ‘harmless’ things that she has posted on social media during her time in ISIS.

Now, I know many will say that we should be sympathetic to her because she was 19 or 20 years old when she joined, and may have been a naïve, young woman. But I believe that she should not be let back into America, under any circumstances.

We should be very careful when any person who has joined any terrorist organization uses an emotional appeal to communicate with the public to signal that they have regretted their decision deeply. That is how people like Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler got into power: emotion and empathy.

Playing with emotions is an effective tactic for terrorists and dictators, and we should not fall for her trap.

President Trump was very clear that she would not be let back in, but I want to reiterate this for anyone to whom this was not clear: she will not be let back into the country due to the fact that she has committed an act of treason, which is punishable by death.

This is why America is not an open borders country, because if it were, then Hoda Muthana would have entered the country without any problem, and would potentially resume her terrorist activities while in the country.

Thankfully, the president has some common sense and has prohibited her from coming back into America.

If we had someone like Hillary Clinton in office, she would have been let back into the country in the blink of an eye, and who knows what else Muthana would have done.

Well… I do.

She would have continued her illegal terrorist activities without any repercussions, she would have trained new members in order to do who-knows-what, and before you realize it, we turn into Europe.

And I dare anyone to tell me otherwise, because that’s what we have seen in England, in Germany, France, and Sweden, among other places.

Stabbings, acid attacks, bombings, shootings, rape, kidnapping, all in Europe, all because many European leaders are too afraid to offend anyone.

Well, I am not.

And because of that, I can say that people like Hoda Muthana and Shamima Begum should not be part of a civilized society, because their doctrine, their philosophy, and their actions make them unfit for civilized society.

The only reason that they should ever be let back into Western society is to be prosecuted and face the consequences of their actions and of their decisions.

And I believe that this act warrants that she be punished to the fullest extent of the American law.

No amount of “tolerance” can change that fact.

– Francisco Rosario

If you liked this article, please share it.

A Social Critique

If anyone has paid attention to any of the news lately, you have probably heard about the situation that occurred with a boy and his parents.

The grandmother tried to make this child believe that he was a girl “trapped” inside a boy’s body, an idea which he vehemently opposed. And, to add to this abhorrent and sad ordeal, his grandmother forced him to wear women’s clothing in private.

The boy’s father, understandably upset, took this to court where it was ruled that the mother would have custody of the boy, and that the father would be able to visit him.

The catch was that he cannot discuss gender and sexuality with his son from a religious or scientific perspective.

In other words, the father is forbidden from being exactly that: a father. A guide through life for this child, and a source of care and knowledge.

This scenario is not a product of chance, nor is it a random act of an unknown origin.

This is the product of a terrible problem, one of philosophical origins.

The problem stems from one of the most basic acts of human reasoning in all of human history, as well as the oldest “treasure hunt” in the history of civilization: the search for meaning, and the search for the truth.

Here in America, we are seeing an increase in secularism, and a rising disdain for organized religion among many millennials (the only exception to this, to my knowledge, would be Islam); and at about the same pace, many young Americans are embracing the idea of socialism.

It is interesting to see how people reject the notion of absolute truth, and of absolute morality, in favor of the dangerous philosophy of moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no absolute good or evil in the world, and that it all depends on personal opinion; that is like saying murder is only wrong if you believe it is wrong.

This idea has caused them to reject Judeo-Christian values, traditional marriage, the value of life in the womb, the free market, love for America, capitalism, free speech, etc.

In other words, it has caused them to completely reject America, and smear it, and those who love it and fight for it, as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and evil. And, it has caused them to look for something else with which to find meaning in life.

This so-called “postmodernist” form of thinking which has pervaded almost every form of entertainment, politics, art, the media in general, among others, has threatened to distort the very foundations of our society; shunning what is good and acceptable, while accepting what is evil, corrupt, and even satanic.

This reminds me of something I read, which said “this is an age where society wants married couples to get divorced, while wanting priests to be able to get married”, and “an age where religion is considered oppressive, but urinating on crosses is considered freedom of expression” .

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we are seeing right now in America, and it is scary.

We are seeing the dismantling of our society, and its foundations, in order to accommodate and normalize things that we cannot, and should not, accommodate in our country, such as pedophilia, socialism, the brainwashing of children that is known as “gender identity”, the entry of illegal immigrants into our country, the dismantling of the family, of Judeo-Christian values, of our national identity, of our borders, and, by extension, the dismantling of our country. All of that, in order to achieve “diversity”.

They believe that white, Christian men are evil and racist, primarily because they are white, Christian men.

Think about that for a second: these “postmodernists” believe in fighting racism by being racist towards whites. And believe in fighting sexism by being sexist towards men.

Well, my question here is this: what is wrong with being white? What is wrong with being a Christian? What is wrong with being a heterosexual man? What is wrong with advocating for the sanctity of life in the womb and outside of it? What’s wrong with wanting to secure our borders and making sure that those who wish to come into America do so in the proper, and legal, manner?

If no one can answer those questions, without resorting to anger, and the excuses of “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, “Islamophobia”, or any other infantile excuse, then I don’t find myself being obligated to listen to that person’s answer, because it is simply childish name calling.

And name calling has never solved anything. Yet, many people have decided that name calling is the only viable option when facing criticism to these questionable and dangerous ideas.

If someone disagrees with allowing children to decide whether or not to change their sex, that person is screamed at, berated, called a “transphobic” person, because he or she doesn’t believe that a 5 year old boy, who barely even understands basic human biology, is somehow already mature enough to decide what gender or sexual preference he is.

It’s not being “transphobic”, it’s called “being an adult” and “having common sense”.

People need to understand that you’re not supposed to take everything a child says seriously. This is not the same as helping your child understand the world, which is good, and necessary for a child’s mental health. This means that when your six year old son tells you that he is a girl, you’re not supposed to play along and take it seriously.

Some people may ask, for some reason only God knows, why not?

Because he’s a little boy, and his mind is not fully matured, and kids are very imaginative at that age, because they don’t know any better.

If it were an adult who wished to change their sex, I may not agree with the idea but that’s their prerogative, and I can’t say much about it because of that, other than “don’t try to convince children that this sort of behavior is perfectly normal and healthy for them, because it isn’t.”

They are, hopefully, mature enough to know the consequences of their decisions and deal with them.

Something else that really bothers me is some of the things that Hollywood has been doing in the past year or so.

Specifically, many Hollywood actors using their platform to alienate Trump supporters, conservatives, Christians, heterosexuals, sometimes white males, etc.

Recently, during the Tony Awards, Robert De Niro used his acceptance speech, not to thank his fans, but to curse out President Donald Trump. On national television. During one of the most prestigious award ceremonies in American television.

The reason I bring up Hollywood is because there has been a habit as of late of bringing politics into the entertainment industry.

Recently, I received a lengthy comment by a reader, whose identity will remain anonymous, which proves that it’s not just me saying that this is true.

This reader says that the entertainment industry now has a habit of putting homosexual couples as characters, this being the case in a series called “Craig on the Creek”, which, to be honest, I’ve never watched. She says that there is not one, but two gay couples in the series.

But, according to her, it’s not just homosexuality.

They also seem to have a habit of putting a lot of black characters in movies and television to push some sort of agenda. Sometimes even going as far as changing traditionally white characters in movies and turning them black.

It’s like saying that there’s a new Indiana Jones movie and the titular character is a woman, when for 37 years, it has always been a man.

It just doesn’t sound right.

If they wish to put these sorts of things in entertainment, then at the very least don’t do this to iconic characters, movies or shows.

Don’t make Batman gay, don’t make Spider-Man into a woman, don’t turn Captain America into Captain United Nations, don’t turn James Bond into a black man, and please, for the love of God, don’t turn Star Wars into an intergalactic transgender, multiculturalist, socialist, homosexual metaphor for “diversity”.

If the entertainment industry wishes to do this, then make other shows and movies. and leave the iconic ones in peace.

Just because you want to pass this stuff off as “entertainment”, doesn’t mean that the rest of us movie fans should suffer the consequences at the expense of iconic characters, series, and movies.

Keep entertainment separate from politics, and don’t change iconic characters and movies beyond recognition. It’s that simple.

Another thing that I need to address is that many people seem to take offense with a lot of things, while supporting, or saying, things that really are offensive.

One example of this is when various radio stations banned the song “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” because it supposedly talked about being raped while on a date.

Meanwhile, there are still some songs on the radio which truly are in poor taste, and no one complains about them.

In fact, Owen Shroyer from InfoWars actually read lyrics from some of the songs that are still allowed on the radio, while “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” got banned from the radio.

That song got banned, meanwhile, there are still songs on the radio that are still offensive, that are sometimes sexist, demoralizing, homophobic, and/or racist, that are aired without any complaints, and no one takes any offense to them, for some reason.

Another example of this is how people like Linda Sarsour talk about how we should respect each other, fight for women, and all that hypocritical nonsense, while she has continually slandered Jews and Israel itself.

It’s like when “Black Lives Matter” or Antifa talk about stopping racism, and then proceed to attack and harass white people and call them derogatory names.

These are people who believe in stopping racism by being racist.

Now, do you see how hypocritical and stupid modern society has become?

I hope so, because we need to clean this mess up, and soon.

-Francisco Rosario

The European Solution

What works for one person doesn’t necessarily work for someone else.

A certain plan of military action that works for the Canadian government doesn’t necessarily mean that it could be useful for the United States, or that an economic plan that may work for Israel could also work for Lebanon.

What works for one person may not necessarily work for another.

“What are you talking about?”, I imagine some of my fellow readers may ask.

I am referring to the political failure that is the European Union, the organization that has become the metaphorical noose around the European continent’s neck.

I have touched the topic of Europe, and the West in general, in two of my past articles, “The Europe Dilemma“, and “The Death of the West (And How to Revive It)“, and I thought that it was necessary to revisit this topic.

I would like to take the suggestions that I made for fixing Europe, and add one more.

The problems and potential solutions that I outlined in those two articles were things that I thought were the answer to the dilemma being faced in Europe.

Little did I know that the problem was even more basic than I initially believed.

Here is where the statement made at the beginning of this article is applied: what worked for the United States of America does not work for Europe, the unity of the European countries in one representative body is what is bringing Europe down to its knees.

Why do I say this?

Allow me to bring some clarity on this proposition.

The European Union is causing problems for various countries in the continent (England, France, and Germany being some of the most prominent examples of this), this organization is attempting to impose its will on the European countries by enforcing mass immigration, imposing useless regulations, and ridiculous laws and ideas on the citizens of these countries.

Among these are: the infamous knife ban on the U.K., gun bans, the EU’s plan to ban memes throughout Europe, French President Emmanuel Macron’s naïve proposal for an “Islam of France”, and the ever present fantasy of multiculturalism.

The EU and the European elites have been blind to what is happening to their countries, they are blind to the obvious invasion being carried out by illegal immigrants due to the open borders policy being imposed by various countries in Europe.

At least, Matteo Salvini has some common sense, and has refused to admit any more refugees which the European Union would have liked to impose on his country.

The European Union has operated, not as a representative body, but as a puppeteer to further an international agenda which will eventually result in Europe’s imminent destruction and its national identity’s disappearance from the face of the planet.

It is truly ironic that this would be the case when the EU was formed to prevent another conflict such as the World Wars, when this organization is what is causing the problems we are seeing in Europe.

This Union has, at least to my view, nothing to offer the European countries other than useless policies, stupid, and sometimes mortal, bans and regulations, and an incessant sermon of diversity and multiculturalism.

They talk about multiculturalism as if it were a sort of divine doctrine by which all of Europe must govern itself, when, in reality, it has caused the city of Paris to become a giant homeless shelter and toilet, the city of London to become a giant gladiator’s arena, and the situation in Germany isn’t far from what is happening to England, either.

They give incessant sermons about multiculturalism, when they should be furthering the interests of the European countries, not admitting illegal immigrants into the continent, while sacrificing their identity and flagellating themselves to further the interests of illegal immigrants and radical Islam inside of Europe.

The open borders policy is the cause of this situation, yes, but the cause of this policy being implemented in the first place, I believe, is the European Union.

The British people voted to leave the European Union. And though the secession from the Union will not be fully implemented until the end of March 2019, I find it hard to believe that the Union will respect that decision, but we will see what happens in March.

I believe that the rest of Europe should follow in Britain’s footsteps and that the Union should be dissolved.

Why should the Union be dissolved?

The reasons for its dissolution are somewhat obvious, for anyone who has followed European news for the past year or so.

First of all, the Union has the tendency to ignore crimes being committed by Muslim gangs due to the bogus excuse that many of these elites use, which is the idea that it makes the Europeans seem unwelcoming, xenophobic, “Islamophobic”, or whatever term the socially detached European elites choose to use as an attempt to slander those who oppose open borders.

Second, it turns a blind eye to illegal immigration, and allows the Europeans to be put in serious danger because of it. However, they insist on the European citizens remaining silent when it comes to this problem.

The third reason is that it focuses on trivial and unnecessary matters such as “hate speech”, enforcing “diversity”, “equality”, and any other noble-sounding, yet vague, value which they use as an excuse to continue to ignore that problem. A problem which they, the Western elites which are detached from virtually all reality, such as Theresa May, Emmanuel Macron, John Tory, and Angela Merkel, continue to ignore.

And for what reason? For what reason do they ignore this?

Because they are afraid. They’re afraid to admit that this idea of “open borders” is dangerous and serves absolutely no purpose other than harming the European citizens and their way of living. That is the fourth reason.

The Union should be dissolved so that what happens in one country doesn’t affect how another country functions.

The European countries deserve better than a useless and cowardly group of elites running their nations’ affairs in such an ignorant and detached manner.

At least in England, there are people like UKIP Leader Gerard Batten (pictured above), and Tommy Robinson, that have some courage when talking about Islam and Muslim gangs in their country.

Regardless of political party, whether in Europe or America, anyone who has the guts to call out this situation and the true cause of it, regardless of how people may feel, deserves some recognition.

Batten deserves recognition because he had the decency to actually link these gangs to Islam, where others would omit this detail because they didn’t want to appear to be “Islamophobic”. So, I commend him for that.

Nowadays, it is rare for a politician in Europe to act in this manner without being denounced as a racist or being handed some penalty by their government for being “insensitive”.

What Batten said is not insensitive it is factual.

What is insensitive is how the European Union is dealing with the problems faced by the continent: by turning the other cheek.

So, if Europe’s EU elitists wish to continue ignoring this problem and keep making life miserable for their citizens for the sake of political correctness, then stay in the Union.

But, if anyone is willing to acknowledge the problem and fix it, then leave.

That is the solution.

Not just a Brexit, but also an “ItalExit”, a “GermanExit”, a “ScotExit”, in other words, a complete dismantling of the European Union, and a restoration of these countries’ sovereignty and dignity.

The United States’ only hope may be to stay united; but for Europe, its solution is for each country to go their separate paths, and for each to secede from this Union.

The European solution is a European Secession from the Union.

And I believe that all European countries should work on this as soon as possible.

–Francisco Rosario