Barack Obama is a Moral Coward and an Asskisser to Totalitarns !

Last December, President Obama  decided to greet Pope Francis with transgendered activists, the first gay Episcopal Bishop who is now already divorced, and activist Catholic nuns. The Vatican was not happy about it and has pushed back.

On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group
criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.

The Obama Administration was no doubt thrilled to make a show of it and push a secularist, anti-Catholic agenda while embarrassing Pope Francis and putting the Pope in an awkward political position.

According to a senior Vatican official, the Holy See worried that any photos of the pope with these guests at the White House welcoming ceremony could be interpreted as an endorsement of their activities.

But Barack Obama would never do this if the Pope was a major trading partner, had a military, or was a totalitarian despot who snuffed out human rights activists.

This was, after all, the President of the United States who sent the Dalai Lama out the back door with the trash so as not to offend the Chinese.

This is the President who turned his back on the Iranian Green Revolution so he could do business with Iran’s totalitarian dictators.

The Chinese Premier is coming for a state visit. What are the odds that the President will greet him with Tibetan dissidents and Taiwanese freedom protestors. What are the odds there will be any there who fled after Tiananmen? I put the odds and slightly less than zero.

Then, of course, there are the Cubans. The President did nothing to work to improve the situation of Cuban human rights activists in jail. He turned a blind eye to them while trying to improve relations with that totalitarian regime. He even had fun watching a baseball game with Raoul and doing the ''Wave''.

But the Pope? Oh, we can greet the Pope with transgendered activists, gay rights activists, and Catholics who disagree with the Pope on Catholic doctrine. That’s really standing up to power and speaking truth!!

The Way I See It.......President Obama, in fact, is only willing to stand up and speak truth when it costs him nothing. He’s never met a totalitarian he wasn’t willing to kneel in front of.

UK “Equalities” Chief Admits He Was Wrong, Muslims Won’t Assimilate !

By Pamela Geller, Breitbart London, April 10, 2016: In one of the most extraordinary admissions of defeat in modern times, Trevor Phillips, the former chief of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has admitted that the path that Britain has been on for years is a catastrophic failure. Muslims won’t assimilate and become loyal Britons. Phillips wrote: “For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.” Instead, he wrote, Muslims are creating “nations within nations” in the West.   It is astonishing that any member of the ruling elite would admit defeat and state what is painfully obvious to any rational human being who for the last few years has been watching the disintegration of the Western mores and law in the wake of Muslim immigration.   Muslims are the only immigrant group that comes to Western countries with a ready-made model of society and government (sharia) which they believe to be superior to what we have here, and they work to institute it.   The question is, now that Phillips has spoken up and stated the truth, what will the UK do now? Continue to jail those who speak critically of jihad and sharia? Or will the UK begin shutting down mosques that incite Muslims to wage jihad?   Will it prohibit hate preachers from speaking on UK college campuses, and instead invite my colleagues? Will Muslim immigration from jihad nations be halted? Will sharia courts be shut down?   This admission of defeat is all the more remarkable coming from Phillips, who popularized the term “Islamophobia” in Britain. As I explained in my book Stop the Islamization of America, the very word is a fictional construct. It was popularized deliberately by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT).   Abdur Rahman Muhammad, a member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the development of the word. “This loathsome term,” he wrote, “is nothing more then I thought terminating cliché conceived in the bowels of Muslim thing tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”   The term “Islamophobia” was designed specifically for the Western mindset of liberal white guilt, stealing the “civil rights” narrative from black Americans and mining the “oppression” of Native Americans, even throwing in the spectre of the Japanese internment camps during World War II.   These are the clubs Islamic supremacists in the West use to beat anyone who dares to speak out or push back against the encroaching sharia, the appeasement of Islamic supremacists and their demands in the secular marketplace, and the restriction of free speech. It was why I was banned from the UK, which is acting like a de facto Islamic state.   In reality, “Islamophobia” is nothing more than a term that Islamic supremacists use to enforce the Islamic blasphemy laws in the West: in Islamic law, to defame or insult Muhammad or Islam is blasphemy, and in many Muslim countries it’s punishable by death. That is why devout Muslims tried to slaughter all of us in Garland, Texas last May, at our Muhammad art exhibit in the defence of the freedom of speech.   The handful of us who have, for years, predicted and warned of the disastrous consequences of large-scale Muslim immigration have been smeared, defamed, and blacklisted — our reputations destroyed. And now once again we have been shown to have been right all along. Phillips made his statement after a poll showed, according to Breitbart London: One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house; 39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband; 31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife; 52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal; 23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament. These numbers are consistent with numerous polls that have been conducted over the past decade. It’s not just the UK. According to a recent poll, 58% of Muslims in the United States reject First Amendment criticism of Islam as a right. 46% want blasphemy punished, 12% want blasphemers killed.   Muslims believe that sharia law is divine and therefore supersedes all national, “manmade” laws. Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else''… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.   This is a huge change for him. He commissioned “the Runnymede report” on Islamophobia” in 1997, making the term mainstream. Now he says: “Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”   They got that wrong, too. How many times have we seen a supposed act of “Islamophobia” turn out to have been committed by Muslims? Phillips’ new realism may bring some sanity back to Britain regarding Muslim immigration, and even strengthen the campaigns of U.S. presidential candidates who have called for a halt to that immigration on national security grounds – including that of Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)    Cruz was the only Presidential candidate who stood up for us in the wake of the Garland jihad attack.This is because we are facing the same problem in the U.S., where some of our most respected Muslim leaders have openly stated they want Islamic rule here. These aren’t people on the fringe. These men are mainstream traitors, and are or have been the leaders of the key Muslim organizations in the U.S.: Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America and the North American Islamic Trust: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.” Omar Ahmad, co-founder and long-time Board chairman of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” Siraj Wahhaj of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.” Zaid Shakir of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshalled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.” Phillips says: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.” That’s right. So what is he going to do about the Islamic threat?   Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

It Bears Repeating: Earth Will Start Cooling Down in 2017 !

With the signing today of the Paris Climate Agreement at the United Nations by 172 countries the hoodwinking by climate scientists of so many ignorant politicians to accept man-made global warming is now a fait accomplis.

However, ONE of the world's leading climate change experts claims to have discovered mathematical anomalies which effectively 'disprove' global warming.

Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.

The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a 'mini ice age' by 2030.

He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been included in the 'standard models' and this has led to inflated mathematical - and therefore temperature - predictions.

He said: "There is an intellectual stand-off in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models.''

Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well-established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.

He said he "mapped out" the architecture of the climate models used and found, that while the physics was correct, it had been "applied wrongly".

He claims to have found two reasons for it being wrongly applied, the first being a vastly over estimated impact on our temperature from CO2. He said: "There is NO empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.''

"Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.
CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the global warming in the last few decades”. He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 18-year temperature stagnation we are now in.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he said.“Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.''

"As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars a day worldwide, wasted."

Although he is convinced he is right, he fears it will not be taken on board by world governments.
“These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment. The political obstacles are massive,” he said.

Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity - a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun. Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the mini ice age in the 2030s.

His theory is unlikely to convince Julia Slingo, UK Met Office chief scientist, who fervently believes increased CO2 levels is the big "smoking gun evidence" for man made climate change.

She said: "Those levels have been rising systematically ever since the Industrial Revolution, and, in fact, have risen very rapidly over the last fifty years, so that the levels we now measure in the atmosphere are at least a third higher than they’ve been for at least 800,000 years. That’s not enough to prove that it’s human activities that are leading to that rise.''
She also argues oxygen levels in our atmosphere have declined for more than 50 years, again caused by burning fossil fuels. "There’s a complete story here, for which there seems to be no other explanation, really, than it is our activities and ways of generating energy that are causing our climate to change."

However, to counter such ''fervour'' an important truth dawns on CSIRO chief Larry Marshall after staff and activists revolt against his planned switch from researching global warming to figuring out

how to cope with it:

“I guess I had the realisation that the climate lobby is perhaps more powerful than the energy lobby was back in the ‘70s - and the politics of climate I think there’s a lot of emotion in this debate.
“In fact it almost sounds more like religion than science to me.”

True. but what conclusions do we then draw about his global warming scientists? Does a religious commitment to global warming make them less likely to accept or announce findings that cast doubt on their creed?

Marshall should go further and discuss how a “religious” belief in global warming theory conflicts with a scientist’s need to be objective. I'm waiting for the next press release.
 

The Way I See It.......There is actually no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. It looks like faith will have to do.

Marxism Failed the World, but Captured Western Academia !

One of the great lessons of the 20th century, paid for with the suffering and blood of hundreds of millions, is that communism was a failure in both economy and governance. This was demonstrated repeatedly with the fall of the Soviet Union, the switch in China from communes and central planning to capitalism, the vast slaughter of the Khmer Rouge, the breakdown of the Cuban economy, and the starving prison house that is North Korea.

The one place that Marxism has succeeded is in conquering academia in Europe and North America. And now it's infecting parts of Australian universities. Marxism-Leninism is now the dominant model of history and society being taught in Western universities and colleges. Faculties of social science and humanities disguise their Marxism under the label "post-colonialism," anti-"social justice." And while our educational institutions laud "diversity" in gender, race, sexual preference, religion, national origin, etc., diversity in opinion, theory, and political view is nowhere to be seen. So our students hear only the Marxist view, and take it to be established truth.
neoliberalism, and the quest for equality and

The truth about Marx's communist tenants are never revealed in their entirety because they would scare the pants off the ignorant university students. That's why I have exposed the true absurd nature of Marx's ''Manifesto'' back in March, 2013. It should shock any idiot thinking embracing it.
   http://back-doc.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-manifesting-of-karl-marxs-manifesto.html

Post-colonialism is the view that all ills in the world stem from Western imperialism and colonialism. The hierarchical caste system in India, that disenfranchises half the population as "untouchables," is, according to postcolonial analysis, and invention of the British while they governed India. So too with tribes in Africa, allegedly invented by the British colonial authorities to "divide and conquer" the native African, who previously had all mixed together happily with no divisions and no conflicts.

So too in Central Asia, where, thanks to Soviet colonial authorities, "formerly fluid hybridities and contextual identifications were stabilized, naturalized, and set into a particular mold that gave each group a definitive history, physiognomy, mentality, material culture, customs, language, and territory," according to one postcolonial author. Apparently, according to the postcolonial view, history and culture in India, Africa, and Central Asia started with the arrival of outsiders in recent centuries.

The West is threatened not by materialist decadence, but by academic-fostered self-hate.

In the Middle East, problems and disorder began, according to post-colonialism, with the Sykes-Picot arbitrary boundaries imposed by the West after WWI, and the imposition of the "foreign and colonialist" Jews on the "indigenous" Palestinians. Unnoticed by post-colonialists are the Persian, Hittite, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Mongol, and Ottoman imperial conquests that made up much of Middle Eastern history, or the unending tribal conflicts beyond the control of imperial authorities. Once again, for post-colonialists, local and regional cultures were benign, and history began with Western imperialism in recent centuries.

The dirtiest word in the Marxist vocabulary is "neoliberal," which stands for an economy based on capitalist principles and processes. Students have learned that "neoliberal" is equivalent to evil. Two students, independently, recently said to me that "we need to replace capitalism," although they had no suggestions about what to replace it with. That half the world tried to replace capitalism in the 20th century, with disastrous results, they apparently had no idea. That capitalism has brought unparalleled prosperity, if not peace and happiness, is unknown to students. They have been taught that the only products of capitalism are exploitation and oppression. Globalization is taught as the expansion of exploitation and oppression worldwide. The great economic developments in Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, Thailand, and the economic progress in Africa, is terra incognita to students, taught only problems but no successes.


Students are taught that the primary value is equality: not liberal equality of opportunity, but the equality of result idealized in Marxist theory. They are not taught, and give no thought to complementary values, such as freedom and prosperity. Equality of result is advocated under the guise of "social justice," which means redistribution of wealth. Students rail against the "1%," unaware that most members of that category are salaried doctors, lawyers, and businessmen who earn their top wages. Nor do they understand that stock ownership is widespread in Western societies, by both private individuals and public institutions, such as pension funds and universities.

The Way I See It......the Marxism taught in colleges and universities is anti-Western, seeing the West as no more than a source of conquest, oppression, and exploitation. Consequently, non-Western cultures are upheld as purer, more decent, and fairer than Western culture. The alliance between Marxist politics and Islamism as seen in the support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood follows logically. Students now see themselves as defenders of Islam, along with all other non-Western cultures, although they know little about these other cultures and their histories.

It has been imagined that the West would fall through materialist decadence; but now it appears that the West is most at risk from self-hate, fostered by the treason of the academics.

The no-Resolve West Keeps Shifting the Titanic's Deck Chairs !

Here’s a sobering fact for you: last week in Brussels, Isis sympathisers killed five times as many civilians in one hour as British airstrikes have killed or injured Isis fighters in Syria since December. At the last count, in late February, British airstrikes over Syria had killed or hurt just seven Isis fighters in three months. Seven. Not even 10; seven. In Brussels, a small gang of Isis fanboys killed 35 civilians. 

 
There’s no doubting the chasm that now exists between our leaders’ rhetoric about Isis and the action they’re willing to take against it. They describe Isis as a colossal, existential threat to Western values, yet they send no men, no ground troops, to wage war against it. Just the occasional manned flight or some flying robots…

 This is the defining feature of the Isis era: the West has the military might to fight Isis, but not the moral conviction. It has the machinery, the men, but it lacks the thing every warrior needs: a deep belief in what he’s fighting for, in this case the idea that our enlightenment values, our free, open societies, are superior to their backward way of life. We in the West agree that we hate Isis, but we don’t agree that the Western way of life is something worth defending, or even something we should be especially favourable about anymore… Laws and codes against Islamophobia represent the institutionalisation of relativism, the suppression of loud and proud defences of the virtues of Western life and thought.

The split screen told the story: on one side, images of the terror bombing in Brussels; on the other, Barack Obama doing the Wave with Raúl Castro at a baseball game in Havana. Bloody Amazing !

On one side, the real world of rising global terrorism. On the other, the Obama fantasy world in which romancing a geopolitically insignificant Cuba — without an ounce of democracy or human rights yielded in return — is considered a seminal achievement of American diplomacy. DUMB ASS !   What kind of message does it send to be yukking it up with Raúl even as Belgian authorities are picking body parts off the floor of the Brussels airport?

Obama came into office believing that we had vastly exaggerated the threat of terrorism and allowed it to pervert both our values and our foreign policy. He declared a unilateral end to the global war on terror and has downplayed the threat ever since.

The Way I See It......it’s now been seven years. The real world has stubbornly refused to accommodate Obama’s pacific dreams. The Islamic State has grown from JV team to worldwide threat, operating from Libya to Afghanistan, Sinai to Belgium. It is well into the infiltration phase of its European campaign, with 500 trained and hardened cadres in place among the estimated 5,000 jihadists returned from the Middle East. The increasing tempo and sophistication of its operations suggest that it may be poised for a continent-wide guerrilla campaign.

In the face of this, Obama remains inert, unmoved, displaying a neglect and insouciance that borders on denial. His non-reaction to the Belgian massacre — his 34-minute speech in Havana devoted 51 seconds to Brussels — left the world as stunned as it was after the Paris massacre, when Obama did nothing. Worse, at his now notorious November news conference in Turkey, his only show of passion regarding Paris was to berate Islamophobe.

Update:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ripped into President Barack Obama for attending a baseball game in Cuba yesterday afternoon instead of jumping on his plane and coming home after the Brussels attacks.

'You don't send a picture of yourself laughing ,while people have just been blown up at a level that...is the equivalent of September 11 to one of our allies,' said Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time of deadly 2001 terrorist attacks. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506098/You-don-t-send-picture-laughing-people-just-blow-9-11-Mayor-Rudy-Giuliani-hits-Obama-attending-baseball-game-Cuba-Brussels-bombings.html#ixzz444v63f2q  With the world on fire, the American president goes on ideological holiday.

Who Would Make TIME's ''Muslim of the Year'' ?

 

A traditional ritual is reflecting on the past year, and as Time Magazine does, anointing the most prominent person of 2015. Indeed, 2015 has been for all practical purposes the “Year of the Muslim.” So I will satirically recognize the most influential “Muslim of the Year,” someone who has cleverly through various means, radically changed the world order and most furthered the Islamic caliphate based on the death of all infidels to Allah.

 

The contestants were Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, leader of ISIS (Islamic State); Bashar al-Assad, the dictator president of Syria; Mullah Akhtar Mansour and Akhund, co-leaders of the Taliban; Sayed Hassan-Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah; Khaled Mashai, leader of Hamas; Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council for American Islamic Relations; and none other than our fraudulently twice-elected president, Barack Hussein Obama.

No other Muslim has done as much, particularly given his power as president of the United States, to further Allah’s goal of a Christian and Jew-free world. The Holy Quran, as Obama likes to call it, teaches that this false god’s will must be obeyed and that all infidels must perish from the earth. As the inscription reads on a ring the ''Muslim of the Year'' has worn since college, “There is no god but Allah,” his actions and non-actions have paid homage to his real and only “deity.” Indeed, Obama can issue all the Christmas messages he falsely utters to the American people and the world – pretending to be a Christian for political expediency, subterfuge and dastardly cover – but after seven years of his presidency, “We the People” are no longer fooled. You do not have to be Donald Trump to see reality at this point. And here is the concrete proof.

 

Notwithstanding that Obama’s Kenyan father was a Muslim – who, ironically, was deported from the United States as having been illegally here under an expired visa – the president’s actions and non-actions in unconstitutionally pushing through a fatal and disastrous nuclear treaty with Iran in 2015 speaks for itself. And, even if the neutered and corrupt elephant of the Republican Party establishment stood by and effectively allowed this to happen – including but hardly limited to presidential candidates Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Chris Christie – the simple and uncontroverted fact is that the Islamic Republic is now just days away from assembling atomic bombs that will be trained on Israel, the United States and Western Europe.

Even if this designated terrorist state does not immediately use them on us, the threat that atomic weapons could reign down is enough to allow these Iranian Shiites to have nearly free reign to further the caliphate of Allah. Obama knows this, and by entering into this existential threat of a treaty, without the legally mandated and proper advice and consent of the U.S. Senate as constitutionally required by our Founding Fathers, he has done more to advance the goals of an Islamic caliphate than any terrorist or group could have ever hoped to achieve. We the People now stand on the precipice of an Islamic nuclear Holocaust that could wipe out not just Christians and Jews but cement the Muslim caliphate against Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos and other world religions that do not accept Allah and his degenerate Prophet Muhammad as god.

Then there is Obama’s so-called confusion and inaction in wiping out ISIS. Those on the right and elsewhere on the non-leftist political spectrum are afraid to call it like it is for fear of being branded racists against our first black leader, and instead attribute this to the president’s alleged weakness. Even Fox News, which thank God exists to counter CNN, the “Communist News Network” and its pathetic and perverse ultra-leftist sister MSNBC, avoids saying it like it is. Obama deserves the title of “Muslim of the Year,” and his championship heavyweight ring is not likely to be removed any time soon. He knows what his calculated actions have wrought – the most powerful and well-financed terrorist organization in the history of the world, far surpassing the fictional “Spectre” of James Bond 007 fame.

The Way I See It......thanks in large part to Obama, there now exists ISIS and its Islamic state, coupled with a nuclear Islamic Iran, with the means and money to eventually achieve Allah’s goal of worldwide domination by Muslims and extinction of the rest of us.

I can go on and on, but space limitations limit me from providing even more proof why this most regrettable and dangerous commander in chief deserves the award of “Muslim of the Year.” While the embedded Time Magazine cover is parody and satire, the real-world facts behind this are not.

The Great Multicultural Con Job !

In the 70s, multiculturalism was sold to the people as the tolerant, moral alternative to earlier evil policies of assimilation and integration. But assimilation and integration were not intolerant ideas. On the contrary, these policies invited migrants to Australia with the promise they, too, could become Australians and enjoy the values that made Australia the country of first choice for millions.

When migrants arrived in postwar Australia, there was a sense of obligation to the new country. The transformation of thousands of poor, displaced migrants into comfortable middle-class Australians in a matter of a few generations is one of the great success stories of integration. The traditional three-way contract was simple: majority tolerance, minority loyalty and government vigilance in both directions.

Becoming a citizen meant accepting responsibilities in return for clearly understood rights and privileges. A migrant renounced “all other allegiances” to swear loyalty to Australia.

More than 40 years later, asking for minority loyalty is regarded as a sign of intolerance. Against a backdrop of entrenched multiculturalism and a human rights frenzy pushing the right to be “separate but equal”, it’s now a case of the host nation owing the migrant.

The great multicultural con is that its proponents deliberately refused to define the term. They opted for feel-good ambiguity. So it meandered along meaning different things to different people. To some, it meant no more than promoting a culturally diverse society loyal to core institutions and core values. Meanwhile, a more virulent form took root, emphasising ethnic rights to be separate but equal, promoting cultural and moral relativism and identity politics where immigrants were no longer Australians, or even “new” Australians.

Worse, multiculturalism demanded that we tolerate the intolerant. To be sure, tolerance is a worthy goal. But it’s meaningful only when tempered with moral judgments about what is right and what is wrong.  When migrants arrive in this country they their first responsibility was to learn English and their second responsibility was to get a job. Somewhere along the line I think we lost sight of things as basic and as important as that. That is a date we must all be able to be part of.