JUST DESSERTS: Badge Niggers in Charlottesville Attacked by Anti-White Lefties

Roy Batty
Daily Stormer
August 12, 2018

Being a badge-nigger is a thankless job. No one likes them, not even the people that they one year to the day sided with against the peaceful political dissidents just trying to hold a speaking event in a park.


To avoid a repeat of last year’s scenario, when a violent white nationalist rally’s clash with the left resulted in one death and dozens of injuries, Charlottesville authorities refused to grant a permit for another ‘Unite the Right’ rally. In addition, Gov. Ralph Northam declared in a state of emergency in the city and ordered the Virginia National Guard to be on standby should any riots arise.

The security measures seemed to have worked as most of the Saturday’s events proceeded in a peaceful manner. Attended mainly by opponents of white supremacists and more mainstream conservatives, the progressive activists carried a large banner through the downtown of the city reading: “Good Night, White Pride.” Others paused to light candles or place flowers at the memorials.

The most intense moments occurred in the evening at the University of Virginia campus at the ‘Rally for Justice’, where a group of some 200 Antifa activists shouted at riot police lines, “Black Lives Matter!” and “No Nazis, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”

Conspicuously absent were the people chanting “Blue Lives Matter.” Those guys got run off by the police in Charlottesville last year. They don’t have a lot of sympathy for Blue Lives left in their hearts after that.

The Antifa and the liberals get to chant about how much they hate cops and the cops can’t do anything about it. These guys have institutional and media support, the Neon-Nazis don’t…and apart from a few broken machine Authoritarian Personality types, no one really has any sympathy for the cops on the Right as well.

So you’ve still got a sizeable number of moderates that might support the cops, but as society continues to balkanize into the far left and the far right…those numbers are going to whittle down and they’re just not going to feel comfortable talking about how much they respect coppers anymore because the left and the right will look down on them for doing so.

Not an enviable position to be in.

But it’s entirely the cops’ own fault. I’m not shedding a tear for them.


Media cockroaches also got attacked.

Antifa attacks all their greatest and supporters.

The Government Spends at-least $57 Billion per Year on Welfare for NEW Democrat-Voting Immigrants


The good news:

President Trump’s ban on allowing welfare-dependent legal immigrants to resettle permanently in the United States would likely save American taxpayers about $1,600 a year per immigrant.

As Breitbart News reported, the Trump administration is set to roll out a plan in the next month that bars foreign nationals who need government welfare in order to live from resettling in the U.S. Such a ban on welfare importation through immigration has been eyed by the Trump White House since February.

Such a plan would be a boon for American taxpayers, who currently spend about $57.4 billion a year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low skilled legal immigrants every year. In the last decade, the U.S. has imported more than 10 million foreign nationals and is on track to import the same amount in the coming decade if legal immigration controls are not implemented.

The bad news: we’re currently allowing people to immigrate here even knowing full well they’ll have to go straight onto the welfare rolls. Were you aware of this? I wasn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I totally suspected we were importing people we knew were going to have to go on welfare. Because you cannot put anything past the left and the globalists. Anything.

I just figured the globalists had found clever ways to hide immigrant welfare so as not to confirm the suspicions of us vexing XENOPHOBES, who are constantly trying to foil their plans to replace us with cheap foreign labor while making us pay for it.

Of course, welfare for immigrants ENRICHES us — and by “us” the globalists mean themselves, literally — and is such an unquestionable and self-evident good that they’ll deny it even exists, and call you a RACIST PANTS ON FIRE LIAR CONSPIRACY NUTJOB for suggesting it does exist.

If spending $57 billion a year on welfare for immigrants is so obviously in the national interest, you’d think the left and the globalist “right” would be touting and celebrating it.

But I don’t remember any politician running on “Welfare For Immigrants” as their big policy idea. I don’t remember the “Welfare For Immigrants” bill being passed by Congress and signed by a president to much fanfare and national media attention.

I must have missed when that bill passed with major approval from a broad majority of Americans. Did you?

If I didn’t know better, I’d say “Welfare For Immigrants” was imposed on us without our consent, or even consultation.

Because I’m sure a great many of us would say that it should be grounds for denial if a prospective immigrant informs us he or she will need to go on welfare upon moving to this country.

Instead our government has somehow decided the opposite.

If you’re wondering why this country spends $57 billion a year on welfare for brand-new immigrants, here’s your answer:

American cities with massive foreign born populations went the strongest for failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton against President Trump in the 2016 election.

And there it is. Those cities with the highest foreign-born populations are New York, Chicago, Washington DC, the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, Philadelphia and Minneapolis.

Take New York City, for example. The New York Times highlights that Clinton won nearly 80 percent of the vote in the city’s five boroughs. Those five boroughs are also home to the largest concentration of foreign-born residents in the state.

In deep blue Queens County, Kings County, Bronx County, and New York County, there is a total foreign-born population of more than three million people. The foreign born population in this deep blue Clinton stronghold makes up more than 35 percent of the total New York City resident population.


In the Chicago area, residing in Cook County, Illinois, Clinton won some precincts by 70 to 96 percent margins against Trump in the 2016 election. Cook County, as a stronghold for Democrats, is also home to the largest concentration of foreign born residents in the state of Illinois.

Of the nearly 1.8 million foreign born residents living in Illinois, more than one million of them live in Cook County. The county with the second largest foreign born population, where more than 175,000 immigrants live, is Cook County’s neighboring region, DuPage County.


For Clinton, the Washington, D.C. region — a heartland for liberals — went the strongest out of all counties in the country for her candidacy. In the precinct encompassing the White House, only seven percent of residents voted for Trump.

The Washington, D.C., Arlington, Virginia, and Alexandria, Virginia metropolitan area has a combined foreign born population of more than 1.3 million, making up about 22 percent of the total metro region.

This is mostly due to chain migration:

Mass legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. continues to be the largest driver of population increases and demographic shifts in the country. Every year, more than 1.5 million immigrants are admitted to the country. The U.S. has imported more than ten million immigrants in the last decade.

The vast majority of foreign nationals arrive through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. Every two new immigrants to the country bring an additional seven foreign relatives with them.

As Breitbart News has extensively reported, the U.S. is on track to import about 15 million foreign-born voters by the year 2038. That is nearly quadruple the size of the annual number of U.S. births; about four million American babies are born every year.

Through chain migration alone, the U.S. will import about eight million foreign-born voters in the next two decades. Those voters are likely to concentrate in American cities with already large foreign populations.

Research shows immigration is terrible for Republicans:

On average across election types, immigration to the U.S. has a significant and negative impact on the Republican vote share, consistent with the typical view of political analysts in the U.S. [Emphasis added]

This average effect — which is driven by elections in the House — works through two main channels. The impact of immigration on Republican votes in the House is negative when the share of naturalized migrants in the voting population increases. Yet, it can be positive when the share of non-citizen migrants out of the population goes up and the size of migration makes it a salient policy issue in voters’ minds. [Emphasis added]

These results are consistent with naturalized migrants being less likely to vote for the Republican Party than native voters and with native voters’ political preferences moving towards the Republican Party because of high immigration of non-citizens. This second effect, however, is significant only for very high levels of immigrant presence. [Emphasis added]

By the way, this is why California, the largest state in the nation, will never again vote Republican: it’s nearly 30% foreign-born. The state is gone forever — it is Mexifornia now.

Oh, and if you object to any of this — $57 billion a year for immigrant welfare, 1.5 million new immigrants per year, chain migration, all for the benefit of the Democrats and their friends in big business — you are viciously denounced in the harshest possible terms.

The Democrats are prepared to import millions of low-skilled foreigners, put them on taxpayer-funded welfare, destroy the social fabric of this nation and turn it into something completely unrecognizable — all to win elections.

What are we prepared to do?


Immigrants Using Nearly 60 Percent More Food Stamps than Native Born Americans

By John Binder

Illegal and legal immigrants are using nearly 60 percent more U.S. taxpayer-funded food stamps than native born Americans, data from the leading immigration research group reveals.

A study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) found that the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native born American household.

Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.

The welfare use of legal and illegal immigrants has largely been buried in news that President Trump’s administration is looking to discourage foreign nationals immigrating to the U.S. legally from using taxpayer-funded welfare. The plan is supported by 62 percent of American voters, the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

Graph: Immigrant-headed households had substantially higher welfare use rates, 2012

(Center for Immigration Studies)

DHS officials say the Trump administration is carefully evaluating policy options that create a fairer legal immigration system for the country’s workers and taxpayers. Those DHS officials say there are billions of foreign nationals who would like to immigrate to the U.S. and that it is the proper role of the federal government to ensure that legal immigration is not negatively impacting Americans, which includes protecting welfare benefits for poor and low-income citizens.

In February, Breitbart News noted how the Trump administration was reviewing such a plan to create a more pro-American legal immigration system that does not put a strain on American taxpayers as the current system does.

For years, Trump has called for the U.S. to implement a merit-based legal immigration system, similar to the controls implemented in Australia, where legal immigrants cannot readily gain access to government welfare and must have high English-speaking skills.

Trump’s plan – opposed by the plutocrat apparatus, big business lobby, and both political establishments – would reduce legal immigration levels from 1.5 million admissions a year to a more reasonable level of 500,000 admissions a year.

The plan is designed to boost the wages and quality of life of America’s working and middle class, which has suffered from poor job growth, stagnant wages, and increased public costs to offset the importation of millions of low-skilled foreign nationals.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

Are You Ready for the Purge?

Censorship by Tech Giants Is an Assault on the Right to Exist in an Online-Dominated Society

Editor’s Note: This is a partial repost of “The Censorship Master Plan Decoded,” available at this link (PDF).

The Censorship Master Plan Decoded (i.e. “The Adams Report”)

The blueprint for how tech giants covertly silence online speech, and how America can fight back against corporate tech monopolists

Part One: The Societal Cost of Censorship and the Denial of the Right to Exist

The predominant argument of pro-censorship advocates largely consists of claiming that because Google, Facebook, etc., are private corporations, they can therefore engage in discriminatory censorship of any kind they wish, without restraint or regulatory oversight. This argument collapses when seen in the context of the broad recognition that participation in dominant online platforms has become essential for personal, social and professional interactions in the modern world.

Just as citizens of fifty years ago could not meaningfully participate in society without phone or electricity service, today’s citizens cannot meaningfully participate in the modern world without an online presence, expressed through the dominant online communications platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.

Dominant online platforms have become essential services for meaningful participation in modern society.

This is further underscored by the fact that an individual’s online presence exerts forceful and lasting influence on their personal and social life, professional life, career opportunities and freedom of expression, including the freedom to engage in political debate that may influence others in elections. To be shadow banned by Facebook or YouTube today is as destructive to an individual’s quality of life as being surreptitiously cut off from phone and electricity services in the 1970s, for example, or even denied the right to walk down a public sidewalk and chat with neighbors.

Facebook is, in essence, the “public square” of modern life, with other adjunct services such as Twitter and YouTube serving similar social interaction functions.

Yet no reasonable person would argue today that electricity companies, even though they are private corporations, should have to right to cut off electricity from targeted customers because the company disagrees with their politics. Similarly, internet service providers (ISPs) don’t cut off customers who use their services, even when those services are conduits for forms of expression with which the ISP may vehemently disagree.

Yet according to the distorted justification of the political Left in America today, all private companies have the inherent right to refuse essential services to selected customers merely because they disagree with the political views of those customers. By this thinking, banks should refuse to lend money to Trump supporters. Housing builders should refuse to sell homes to conservatives. Gasoline stations should carry signs that read, “Conservatives not allowed to buy gas.” Even iPhone retailers, we’re told, should refuse to sell iPhones to customers who are Trump supporters, because they might use those iPhones to post pro-Trump comments that “offend” those who oppose Trump.

There was a time in America where one specific group of people was told to sit at the back of the bus. Certain cafes were reserved for “whites only,” and people were judged and punished based on the color of their skin. Online censorship by tech giants now judges people based on the color of their thoughts, and conservatives, Trump supporters and advocates of natural health content (see below) are overtly told, “We don’t serve your kind here,” an obvious throwback to the era of discrimination and intolerance that Americans have roundly rejected. (Amazingly, this overt discrimination is being carried out by the very people who proclaim themselves to be “tolerant” and “inclusive.”)

In a society that has roundly rejected the idea that private businesses can discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, established media giants are openly demanding that private businesses now discriminate against people based on the color of their ideas.

Because of the online nature of modernity, the censorship of individuals on the dominant online platforms of open expression is an attack on their very right to participate in society. No modern person can meaningfully participate in modern social and professional interactions without an online presence on one or more social media giants. They have become “essential services” for modern life, making them just as critical to modern survival as electricity, housing or phone service.

Many on the political Left attempt to conflate these issues by citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which concluded that a Christian baker in Colorado could not be compelled by the state to engage in artistic expression (decorating a cake) that violated his private religious convictions. According to Leftists who are increasingly devoid of logic and reason, this proves that private corporations can ban speech they don’t like. Yet the Christian baker (Jack Phillips) is not the Google of cake baking in the world and clearly does not control 90% of the cake decorating business in America. Gay customers were free to rather easily find a vast assortment of other cake shops that would gladly decorate the cake, and they did not need to violate someone’s religious beliefs in order to achieve that goal. Finally, Jack Phillips’ cake shop is not an essential public forum for modern society, quite obviously, and his refusal to engage in artistic expression against his wishes in no way harmed the gay customers beyond the mere inconvenience of walking down the street to another gay-friendly cake shop and engaging in a business transaction there.

The central deception of tech giants

The tech giants now discriminating against individuals based on the color of their ideas — companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter — have all pursued a central deception that has only now been exposed.

That deception consists of these companies launching under the false pretense of being “open platforms” that welcomed free speech from nearly anyone. None of these platforms launched with an honest warning that stated, for example, “Warning to conservatives: Your kind aren’t welcomed here.”

Because of this central deception, platforms like Facebook rapidly expanded as individuals who had channels there promoted the Facebook platform to their own friends, family members and professional contacts. This allowed Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., to rapidly expand and become the dominant platforms of online expression and social interaction.

Once their dominant market position was achieved, they then started banning individuals based on the content of their ideas, deeply violating the original promise and pretense of the online service. In other words, only after conservatives helped Facebook become the dominant social media platform did Facebook cut them off from participating in that very platform.

Facebook baited users for over a decade, exploited those users to build a dominant global platform, then cut off the speech of certain selected users whose speech it didn’t like.

In this way, Facebook exploited the good will of its authentic users, then violated its social contract and business ethics, transforming its once-open platform into a discriminatory echo chamber policed by intolerant, small-minded Leftists who have repeatedly demonstrated zero tolerance toward speech that violates their own limited worldview.

Facebook, in essence, baited users for over a decade, exploited those users to build a massive global platform that became the de facto standard for social media interaction, then cut off the speech of certain selected users whose speech it didn’t like. This means the very premise of Facebook has been a fraud from day one.

If Facebook had launched its platform with its honest agenda: “Conservatives, Christians and straight white males are not welcomed here,” it never would have grown to become the dominant social media platform it has since achieved. The market dominance of Facebook, in other words, was entirely dependent on executing a “central deception” about its long-term agenda.

Stated another way, the market success of today’s tech giants could never have been achieved if they had been honest about their true internal goals of discrimination and censorship. All of today’s dominant tech giants were built on fraud and deception.


Shocking Video Shows 3rd World Conditions in Los Angeles – Homeless Everywhere

Right next to Los Angeles’ business district, full of high-priced skyscrapers, you will find endless encampments of homeless people living on the streets.

“Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost” A Review

Did He Just Say That?

Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost









Book Written By Tom Kawczynski

Do you ever wonder what happened to America? Do you wonder how we went from a stable, prosperous land in the 1950s — a land whose cities were the jewels of the world with neighborhoods where no one locked their doors and an education system that was second-to-none — to a country where it isn’t safe to walk the streets at night, and where huge numbers of people graduate high school unable to read, but fully convinced that White heterosexual men (particularly those of the working class) are StupidEvilRacistSexistNazisWhoWannaKillSixMillionJews? Do you wonder where strident feminism came from? How about the “trans-gender” agenda? Do you wonder who’s behind the rise of militant black racism or open borders? Or why radical red guard-style communists, masquerading as “anti-fascists”, are free to roam our streets attacking any White person, they deem “racist”, or “sexist”, or “homophobic”, etc., with relative impunity? In short, have you wondered how we lost America?

In January of this year, Tom Kawczynski found himself at the epicenter of a manufactured national media firestorm designed to force him out of his position as the town manager of Jackman, a small community in rural northern Maine, for daring to ask these questions. Jackman’s loss was America’s gain. His forced resignation gave him the time to answer these questions and more.

In Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost, Kawczynski weaves a tangle of apparently disparate threads into a sweeping historical account of the consolidation of globalist power that defines the history of the last century in the West; it tells the story of how we’ve become who we are. His slim (238-page), compelling “popular history” offers an expansive vision enhanced by his fluid style and sustained with remarkable clarity. It contains many insights, and touches upon every major issue of our time — from economics to the politics of identity, from the failure of our school system to the shadowy power of the “Deep State.” “This book is about the destruction of beliefs we once held”, Kawczynski writes, “and ideas that were important to us.” The following is a short list of just some of the topics about which our beliefs and ideas have been destroyed:

  • race
  • the battle of the sexes
  • the queer agenda
  • immigration
  • communism
  • socialism
  • World War II
  • hyper-taxation combined with federal mandates to local communities
  • the military-industrial complex
  • the security/police state
  • the controlled media
  • the myth of perpetual growth
  • invade the world/invite the world
  • the drug epidemic
  • the Kennedy assassination
  • respectable conservatives
  • technology
  • and much, much more

Writing from the perspective of a historian with a deep reserve of contextual understanding, Kawczynski begins with the story of how he was forced to resign, and uses that as a launching-pad for the bigger story of how America got to be the way it is. His prologue also provides the reader with some background on Kawczynski and exposes his fundamental views — including his biases. For instance:

My parents taught me to be honest, and to the very best of my ability, and not without a degree of fear for consequences that will accrue, I’ve written this understanding. My hope is that it will serve as a beacon for others in their own search and help those out there to understand both my own efforts and those of many others who are branded as evil and wicked by the lying media.

While acknowledging that “History is messy because there are many contradictory actors and agendas all at work” and stating that he’s “not going to try to offer . . . a narrative that removes that ambiguity,” Kawczynski argues against the “accidental” view of history that most of us accept (because it is presented as fact by establishment historians and promulgated by the mass media) and presents a strong case for what he calls the “conspiratorial” view.

The accidental view would have us believe that the history of the last hundred years is “a series of coincidences in the search for greater liberty, the proverbial freedom from previous strictures and the happenstance outcome of individual battles pushing the nation in the direction of greater liberalization” and that people don’t organize into groups to gain power and then lie about why they are organizing. Kawczynski suggests that what has happened to America “is no accident, but rather the result of a series of actions spanning the last hundred plus years that saw the deliberate deconstruction of every source of authority and tradition in American life.” However, many are beginning to “see what was done as the concentrated effort of a few actors — whether they be individual or within certain groups — trying to reshape society to amass greater power or advantage for their cause.”

He then goes on to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of Jewish involvement in everything antithetical to the interests of White America and suggests “we should ask why we keep finding them far more than any natural distribution whenever efforts are made to undo our society.” He recounts this Jewish involvement in dozens of issues, great and small, recognizing, for instance, that the Rosenbergs (who sold atomic secrets to the Soviets) were Jews. He notes that “It would have been interesting to hear Oswald’s defense, but he was murdered just two days later by ((((((((((((((((((Jack Ruby)))))))))))))))))), a man born Jacob ((((((((((((((((((Rubenstein)))))))))))))))))) in Chicago and who ran a night club in Texas”; and he comments on “how heavily involved [Jews] were with the creation of the Soviet Union,” not to mention international communism, in general.

He goes far beyond merely blaming Jews, however, and makes the case that the beliefs and actions of Whites are a big part of the problem by presenting a panoply of players — from feminist activists to corporatist stooges — and showing how, under the influence of Jewish hegemony, their collaboration enables the destruction of Western nations.

When discussing Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s blockade on Japan’s fuel supply which forced Japan’s hand in attacking Pearl Harbor, he informs us that,

it’s interesting the most valuable assets of the American fleet, the aircraft carriers were all safely away from Oahu. For all the code breaking prowess of the United States, and their own war planning conducted by General Mitchell, they had thought Japan might one day try a first strike attack, but security was strangely lax. Rumors persist to this day the British knew the attack was coming, but the prize of seeing the sleeping giant that was American mobilization brought into the war [was motivation enough].

He examines the creeping power of the state and illustrates how each leftist movement (multiculturalism, corporatism, ((((((((((((((((((Marxism)))))))))))))))))), feminism, queerism, etc.) helps to advance it by convincing Whites, particularly heterosexual White men of the working/middle class, to be ever more “atomized” individuals, while simultaneously weaponizing everyone else by not only allowing, but encouraging, them to join with their respective identity collective to act as agents for “change”. These change agents, in turn, act to destroy White nations in an effort to bring about global governance which he calls “globalism 2.0.” The logic behind this is to “force everyone together into one group by whatever means necessary, and watch the differences resolve themselves.”

A major platform of this new globalism is the destruction of local communities, both via demographic change and through economic ruin — a phenomenon Kawcyznski is intimately acquainted with because of his role as town manager. According to Kawczynski, the federal government destroys “the ability of the local community to sustain itself. Sucking all the oxygen out of the room with the massive taxes they collect at the federal level and the administrative mandates which every town, city, and state struggles to comply with.” Hyper-taxation at the federal level steals funds from local governments which the feds then give back, but with restrictions. These restrictions come in the form of mandates which allow the federal government to circumvent Constitutional limitations on federal power. For instance, the Constitution makes it clear that education is a local concern and the federal government has no say. But by taking our taxes away from us and then giving them back, they can demand that local communities comply with federal rules on education.

In his chapter on “The War of the Sexes”, Kawczynski briefly touches upon many of the profound problems of feminism, including the negative economic impact of feminism, which is only rarely discussed. He points out that “where the old system had one person, almost always the man working to make enough money to sustain his wife and family, this new system would have two parents working, each making less as the labor supply swelled with wages dropping accordingly.” Flooding the labor-pool with women reduced wages, making it difficult for most men to earn enough money to support a family, this, combined with racial-flooding, has led to a situation in which — after accounting for inflation — the average man in America now makes less than 60% of what he made in 1971.

Someone Has to Say It captures the dual nature of the essential struggle of White Nationalism: to raise awareness of Jewish power and influence, while simultaneously aiding Whites in recovering a healthy identity which enables them to resist that power and influence. This, in turn, will enable us to reclaim the heritage that rightly belongs to us. Kawczynski is right when he says, “what was done to our country was the work of generations of effort and there will be no quick or easy fix. It will take much pain, effort, and exertion to rediscover what was lost and to build new solutions to our current problems.”

It’s certain true that the fix will not be quick or easy, but it is remarkably simple: just eliminate incentives and subsidies for anti-White groups and re-enable White men to express themselves in a manner that is healthy and natural. In practice this means eliminating all of the various forms of welfare for anti-Whites, including “Affirmative Action,” and allowing White men to think, speak, and behave in ways that are natural for them.

Although long-time readers of The Occidental Observer and other veterans of our struggle will already be familiar with much of the material in the book, there are several informative chapters on topics generally considered side-issues that are nevertheless important to our movement. This reviewer particularly liked Chapter 21 on the Internet, Chapter 23 on climate change, and Chapter 24 on junk food. Further, because of it’s gentle approach to the Jewish Question, it is an excellent introduction for people less informed;  Kawczynski’s approach is unique in that it is suitable as a primer for newbies from both ends of the political spectrum. It explains effectively to those concerned with gun rights and the Muslim Invasion why these things are happening while at the same time demonstrating to “progressives” why they are part of the elitist globalization problem — not the solution. Someone Has to Say It makes an excellent gift for friends and family members who could benefit from a gentle introduction to our concerns, as well as a great donation for a local library.