My mother believed in “common sense” testing. She said if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and acts like a duck; it’s a duck. She believed that actions speak louder than words and that only a liar said one thing and then did the opposite.

Would President Obama pass my mother’s “is he a Muslim” test? Let’s see. President Obama says there is nothing more beautiful than the Muslim call to prayer in the evening. He says that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. 

Obama’s father and step father were Muslims and he spent his childhood living in a Muslim country where his school enrollment records say his religion is Islam. As President of the United States he genuflects to the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia but not the Christian Queen of England. He thumbs his nose at America’s friends and bows to its enemies. In short, Obama quacks like a Muslim, waddles like a Muslim and acts like a Muslim, so is he a Muslim? My mother would say, “Yes! He’s a Muslim through and through.”

Growing up as a Muslim, Obama must have learned that according to the Qur’an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard provided in so doing one advances Islamic goals. Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims; in the deepest of their Muslim hearts they have been taught that all non-Muslims are infidels.

Speaking of double standards, Saudi Arabia is building mosques all over the world and Muslims are hoping to build a 13 story mosque at “Ground Zero” in New York City. At the same time, Islam’s double standard mandates that no non-Muslim churches be built in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries.

A good example of this double standard principle in action was Yasser Arafat. He could seemingly enter into genuine peace negotiations with the United States and Israel and, at the same time; lie about it with complete sincerity. Routinely he made all sorts of promises and pronouncements in English, and the very next day said the exact opposite to an Arabic audience -- perhaps to him it wasn’t really lying, just being faithful to the teachings of the Qur’an.

Is it because President Obama is secretly a Muslim that he can so sincerely pretend, like Arafat, that his actions and policies have never put a strain on U.S. Israeli relations? “If you look at every public statement I have made it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel.” This is like President Clinton saying that it depends on what the meaning of is is.

In 2005 the U.S. promised Israel, in writing, that in future negotiations with the Palestinians we would not insist that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. But last year the Obama Administration said that that promise would no longer be honored.
In the past, both Democrat and Republican Administrations have insisted that negotiations be based on a two-state solution, which means that for Palestinian refugees
there can be no open “right of return” to Israel

With open immigration the number of Palestinians living in Israel would quickly overwhelm the number of Jews, and soon the Jewish state would cease to exist. Candidate Obama, while running for president, made it clear that he did not support a “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. But now that he’s president, he has reneged on that promise.
  
Months ago Obama promised to send 1,500 National Guard troops to the Arizona border and to spend at least $500 million on border security. Gov. Brewer is still waiting for the troops and money to arrive.

In a recent Muslim-double-standard speech, President Obama bragged that the southwest American border is as safe as it has ever been. But at the same time his Administration was putting up signs warning American citizens to stay away from the Arizona border area because, “SMUGGLING AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA.”

Is Obama a Muslim? You make the call.

The counterinsurgency strategy being implemented by the United States in Afghanistan is based on building trust and making friends of local Afghan tribal and political leaders. Ideally once they learn to trust us they will become more cooperative in defeating the Taliban, victory will follow upon victory, and soon we will be able to bring our military forces home.

This might be a workable plan were it not for the fact that Muslims are forbidden by their bible, the Qur’an, to make friends with non-Muslims, whom they call infidels. So how and when will we be able to get these Afghan Muslims – who believe that it is perfectly acceptable to lie, deceive and apply a double standard when dealing with infidels – to trust us and honestly cooperate? Is our hope to make friends of the Afghans and to defeat the Taliban an absurd impossibility?

I often hear people ask whether Islam is a religion of peace. The answer is both yes and no. Supposedly it will become a religion of peace once the whole world has been converted to Islam. If you are already a Muslim then for you it is supposed to be a religion of peace already. But if you are a non-Muslim it is meant to be a religion of violence. And it will remain a religion of violence to you unless and until you deny your own religion and accept Islam.

You see Islam follows a double standard. Allah directs that all non-Muslims be forced to accept Islam and to live under Shari’a Law. But at the same time it is a crime for a Muslim to convert from Islam to another religion. The punishment for those who do convert is death.

Additionally, Muslims are forbidden to be friends with non-Muslims. Muslims can lie, deceive and pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims, but in their Muslim hearts non-Muslims must always be considered infidels.

A Muslim’s first allegiance is to Islam. Only after that can considerations of allegiance to family and country be measured. So a Muslim’s taking of an oath of loyalty to the United States, or any other non-Islamic country, is probably meaningless.

The Qur’an, was written in sections (called surahs) over a period of 23 years. Some parts of the surahs conflict with other parts of the surahs. I’ve been told that the newer surahs take precedence over the older ones. For example, surahs written in the first year may speak of living peacefully with infidels and treating them with respect. While those written in the 23d year may speak of death, violence and war against those very same infidels.

We Americans strive to be so politically correct these days that Muslims are able to take advantage of our constitutional freedom and tolerance to the point of destroying the fabric of the America our Founders fought and died for. If Islam and its Shari’a Law are permitted to continue to run their natural course in the U.S., unchallenged, the America we know will one day cease to exist.

The long range goal of Islam is to conquer the U.S., Europe, and the western world for Allah and then move on to force the rest of the world to adopt Islam. Our hope of making friends and building trust with Muslim Afghans is an unrealistic and dangerously naïve goal.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on Islam or the Qur’an, the Muslim Bible. But for some reason during my high school years I became fascinated with the career and writings of T.E. Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia.) I found myself intrigued and captivated by the stories and histories of the Middle East. Over time through further historical reading and observation, I formed a few opinions and came to several conclusions about the actions and traditions of Muslims and Islamic nations.

One of the principles I became familiar with is that in Islam it seems honorable to lie, if by doing so you advance Islam’s goals. Perhaps that is why it is perfectly acceptable and even praiseworthy for a Muslim leader to say something in English to a non-Muslim audience and the western news media, and then the very next day say the exact opposite thing while talking in Arabic to a Muslim audience and news media. A good example of this principle in action was Yasser Arafat. He could lie openly with complete sincerity while deliberately entering into false negotiations with Israel, the United States and the United Nations -- probably because to him it wasn’t really lying.

I found that lying, deceiving and living a double standard are the norm for them not because they are bad people, but because their religion approves of it as long as it advances Islam’s goals. As I see it, Islam’s fundamental goals are to convert the entire secular and religious worlds to a belief in Islam, and for those converted nations to agree to be governed by Islam’s Shari’a Law.

So this is about more than lies, deceit, and a double standard. It is also about a Muslim’s holy duty to convert non-Muslims to Islam and to try to turn non-Islamic governments into Islamic Shari’a Law governments. If in the process a bloody, violent war is precipitated, so much the better since the only way a male Muslim can be guaranteed access to the heavenly Paradise is to die fighting for Islam in a holy war. On the other hand, the only way a woman can be guaranteed an after-life in that Paradise is if, upon her death, her husband is pleased with her. In short, women are very much subservient to men.

According to Islam, following laws other than Islamic law is sin. Why?  Because the earth is Allah’s and it is a sin for mankind not to live under and to be following Allah’s Shari’a law while on his earth. Thus, it is the duty of all Muslims is to convert all non-Muslims to Islam and to replace all secular governments with an Islamic government -- a “One World Government.” This means that to be faithful to Islam, all Muslims living in the U.S.  should insist that the American people and the American government adopt Islam as the state religion and Shari’a as its national law.

To help accomplish this Saudi Arabia is building mosques all over the world, but at the same time Islam’s double standard mandates that no non-Muslim church building can be built in Saudi Arabia or in any other Islamic country. Muslims are free to criticize other religions but it is a punishable sin for anyone to criticize the Muslim religion. In short, there is and can be no freedom of the press in an Islamic country.

Because America was founded upon the Christian principles of honesty and truthfulness we take freedom of the press as a given. It is difficult for us to understand Islamic concepts and practices that are the opposite of those we hold dear, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We often forget that Muslim nations are sometimes playing chess while The United States and other western nations are playing checkers.

The notion that it is religiously acceptable to lie, deceive and have a double standard -- one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims – is an insidious and dangerous tenant of Islam If that is the Islamic mindset and modus operandi, we must always be aware that any dialogue with Muslims may not be honest and that their intentions might be less than honorable.

We are a nation of people who value transparency and honesty. We must always be awake to the very real possibility that these characteristics which make America great – our generosity, our compassion, our sometimes gullible and naïve willingness to accept, embrace and welcome all religions and nationalities may, in the end, prove to be America’s downfall.

Conquering impossible challenges has been the norm for America since before its founding. In the Revolutionary War, thirteen tiny American colonies stood up to and defeated the world’s greatest and most powerful empire. Compared to that feat, stopping a deep water oil well spill in the Gulf of Mexico is “no big deal.”

The conventional wisdom is that President Obama has no solution for the Gulf oil spill because there is nothing to be done that he and BP haven’t already tried. I could not disagree more.

Immediately following the oil rig explosion two months ago, Obama should have immediately assembled his federal government team leaders and the leadership of the Gulf States. He should have included the United Kingdom, the Dutch, and all other countries that had offered or were capable of providing significant assistance as well as all the oil companies, foreign and domestic, that are involved in deep water drilling.

He should have declared a national emergency, pointed out that failure was not an option and then rescinded all rules which might impede recovery and reclamation operations. If necessary he should have made up new rules as the situation warranted and as events evolved.

Next, he should have briefed everyone on what had occurred, what the current status was, what kind of help was needed from them, and let them all have their say while he listened and interrupted only to keep the discussion focused. The one thing his job did require him to speak to with authority was to outline the nation’s goals: that is, to protect the American people and their livelihood. Clearly he failed.

The most immediate concern was to prevent oil from getting to the beaches and marshes. The most successful way to do that might have been by deploying booms or creating new barrier islands and all that entails. In other locations skimmers may have been the best way. Some situations might have favored dredging, burning the oil or other measures.

Simultaneously he should have explored a dozen or so different ways of mitigating damage and cleaning up the oil. Perhaps only a half dozen of these solutions would have been effective enough to adopt permanently.  During the course of the discussions no one should be allowed to lose sight of the necessity of finding a way to stop the flow of oil whether by capping, more drilling or whatever other clever ways the “smart oil guys” might suggest.

What the President should not have done in that meeting was mention or focus any attention on who was to blame for the spill or who had liability. And he should never have sent lawyers to the Gulf to try to establish guilt or fix blame. This was a time that demanded leadership and team building not reproach and fault finding.  The time for that would come later once the immediate emergency was past. 

Until the conclusion of a complete and thorough investigation of the oil rig explosion there is no way of knowing what really caused the accident. It is a waste of valuable time and energy and an unnecessary distraction to try to fix blame before a sufficient investigation is complete.  Neither is it time to try to sell the American people on visions of a brave new renewable energy world.

Everyone should have left the meeting with one goal and focus: to protect the gulf beaches, waterways and maritime industries. Only when this had been accomplished could imaginations be allowed to drift toward creating a mythical green Land of Oz.

Were George Washington and Abe Lincoln here they would laugh at Obama’s notion that this oil spill tests the limits of American technology. So far all we’ve succeeded in testing are the limits of Obama and his staffers. It reminds me of Jimmy Carter, the malaise President, who said that the United States was too large and too difficult a country for just one person to govern as President. Then along came Reagan who governed America – all by himself – just fine.

 Last year President Obama, his House and Senate colleagues, and his czars and advisors, ignored the nation’s loss of jobs and the failed economy and piled debt upon more debt while partying at the White House and passing health care legislation. Nero would have approved.

This year they plan to spend their time passing Obama’s new energy and climate change proposals, while blaming BP and President Bush for the oil spill. What they should be doing is fixing the problems. Have they lost sight of the fact that we Americans face no problem that can’t be fixed with a little leadership?  

There were many occasions, during my thirty-four or so years of serving in the U.S. Army, when I took command of failing military units and nursed them back to good, sound health. I did it so often that it became one of my specialties.

If you tell soldiers or units often enough that they are failures, they will become failures even when they are not. A real leader must instill within his subordinates the feeling and knowledge that they are or can quickly become certain “winners” and that if they do what he tells them to do they will not only succeed, but will set the standard for other units to emulate.

The worst thing a new leader can do is to start off by blaming others, threatening punishment or, as President Obama so smugly puts it, “kicking ass.” Obviously he is still in the process of learning that no one can effectively build a unit and motivate their subordinates to successfully attack and solve major problems if the subordinates are in constant fear of being fired or publicly humiliated.

Experience also teaches that sometimes when you assemble a group of brilliant authorities who expertly wrestle their way through a problem and come to a brilliant consensus they are sometimes wrong. Thus you may suffer through the embarrassment of having kicked the wrong “ass.” Experienced leaders know that it is much more effective to motivate your subordinates through reward than through punishment.

The mission statement for every leader from President of the United States to CEO to Boy Scout leader is “well developed skills of persuasion and openness to working through controversy in a positive way.” That is, everyone has their say and dissenting views are openly examined, discarded or expanded upon and adopted. Most of the time an authoritative leadership style is less preferred than a participatory one. Unfortunately for Obama, who still has so much to learn about leadership, there is no substitute for a lack of seasoned instinct and the ability to identify and deal with ever increasing challenges.

Fort Benning, Georgia is the home of the U. S. Army’s Infantry School. I have been assigned to or visited it many times; its motto is “Follow Me!” Those who attend the school major in “LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP, and LEADERSHIP!” To help vividly impress the importance of leadership upon the minds of the students is the statue of an infantry leader caught in mid stride, clutching a rifle in his left hand and signaling with his up-raised right arm for those behind to follow him. Appropriately it is named “Follow Me!” 

We have a saying in the Infantry. To really know what’s going on in battle you must go to the sound of the guns, the rifles, the machineguns, the pounding mortars, and the screaming “incoming” artillery shells. There is no substitute for going where the action is! Dithering in your headquarters or in the White House for weeks or flying around the country attending parties, social events, speaking at political fund raisers or playing basketball and golf simply doesn’t cut it.

A real leader immediately goes to the sound of the guns, the disaster area, and when he gets there he talks directly to those who are leading the battle – those directly in charge of stopping and containing the oil spill. He purposes to talk to the “James Carvilles” who speak for everyone living and making a livelihood along the Gulf Coast when he cries out, “We’re dying down here!” A true leader recognizes and responds to the pleas for a personal visit and measurable, immediate help.

The worst thing to do is to fail to give the “first responders” and the Governors at the oil spill whatever they request. Most request made by those involved in close combat are for necessities but some are just morale building. I remember my soldiers during one of my tours in Vietnam asking for ice cream to go with their “Thanksgiving” meals. They certainly didn’t need ice cream and it wasn’t on the menu. In fact, it was a real challenge and inconvenience to locate and helicopter it in; but it gave them a sense of home and put a light in their tired eyes. Those who face death daily deserve all the ice cream they can eat and I got it for them.

Our President has yet to learn that a true leader gives his soldiers -- those fighting and winning the battle -- and his subordinates whatever it takes to cause them to rise up and slay the dragons. Or, in this case, oil spills and plumes. That’s how leaders motivate their followers to successfully tame catastrophic disasters and to snatch success from the jaws of failure.

In the meantime, to the dangerous detriment of our country, Obama is on a very sharp and short learning curve. It is time he either learned his job, or turned it over to someone who can.

No matter what he does, President Obama’s policy seems to be to commit just enough money and personnel resources to keep in the game, but not enough to win. After months of dithering he finally gave General Petraeus two thirds of the minimum number of soldiers requested to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To some Obama’s delay in supplying troops, and then only supplying reduced numbers, might appear to be frugality when, in fact, it only demonstrates indifference and lack of commitment.

It is not just in war where Obama plays his game of “symbolism” and “photo ops.” He plays the same game in all that his administration does or does not do and in all the policies he formulates and adopts.  Most recently the Governors responsible for securing our south western border asked Obama for 3,000 National Guardsmen for border control. After an unconscionable delay, Obama reluctantly agreed to send those troops – but only 1,200 -- not enough to make a difference. As of this writing none of the troops have arrived.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in step with his boss, says he will reform the Pentagon through austere spending, cutting back the Pentagon bureaucracy, and by eliminating unneeded weapons systems. My experience while commanding the Army’s Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, where the Army evaluated weapon systems and military equipment, was that austerity was seriously needed at every level of weapons and systems development. If Mr. Gates is serious and not just paying lip service, I commend his efforts and offer to help in any way I can. I question, however, whether or not this is just another of Obama’s many tricks to undercut badly needed weapons systems, military equipment, and personnel requirements.

But it appears that the Commander in Chief actually intends to cut the military health care budget; concurrently he would like to reduce growth in military pay. Our armed forces are being repeatedly sent off to fight two wars at the same time. In the meantime their families live in dread of answering the door bell to find someone in uniform standing there bearing the news that daddy or mommy isn’t coming home.

Is this really the time to reduce military pay, benefits and the availability of artificial limbs?  As one who served two tours of duty in Viet Nam, I think it’s criminal for a president to send the nation’s youth back and back again and again to be mangled by the jaws of war.

And while the austerity broom is cleanly sweeping through the corridors of the Pentagon, perhaps it could broaden its scope and address the most significant military problem the nation faces. We are requiring too much sacrifice from too few of our citizens. To adequately face up to our world wide requirements and wars, the threat of a possible war on the Korean Peninsula, a nuclear Iran, and winning the “War on Terror” requires a significant increase in the numbers of soldiers, sailors and airmen on active duty. 

To be prudent, the size of the Army and Marines should be increased, perhaps by as much as fifty percent. Yes, I hear the groans from Obama, Gates, the news media and the Washington elites, but I bet that I won’t hear any groans coming from the thinning ranks of our armed forces and their families.

Perhaps President Obama and Secretary Gates should be required to go to Walter Reed Army Hospital and face the soldiers whose legs have been blown off and whose arms have been amputated and tell them and their children why they don’t merit a miserly 1.4 percent pay increase in 2012.

I’d be the first to confess that military spending can be restrained in some areas. But it also needs to be increased in other areas such as medical care, pay, and benefits. We also need to better equip the warriors who are safeguarding our liberty and Constitution. Perhaps then President Obama can win the war-time trust and confidence of the nation’s armed forces and of the American people.

Worldwide, there are many political and financial elites who feel obligated to portray the United States as a failed state unworthy of the world’s respect. Their view stands in stark contrast to that of the worlds common man, however. I’m talking about those who ford rivers, climb fences, and risk death while attempting to cross hot, trackless deserts to get to the “Promised Land” called the United States of America. That is the view our Founders held as they risked their lives and the lives of their families to found and establish this great land of America.

John Adams our second president once said, “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Consequently, he would no doubt agree that the political theocracy that is called “modern” Islam is a 7th Century way of life that is best suited for those who still practice and live under 7th Century ideas and cultures.

But America walks a very different road. At our founding we were a nation that adopted a cultural requirement to maintain a certain level of  decency and who refused to allow our moral Christian foundation to be undermined or desensitized by wickedness, shame, violence and scandalous behavior. Unfortunately immorality has now entered into prime time.

Isn’t this what the Tea Partiers are trying to convey to our representatives in Washington? That our political and intellectual elites are producing nothing more than constitutional paralysis. That they are not seeking to secure ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” but are simply creating mass frustration and confusion.

Were he here today John Adams would no doubt be a Tea Partier himself. His written words seem to confirm that when he says, “We face arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of national unity: with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values.” He would never use political correctness to justify a sense of false security or a failure to act -- in Washington or at the Arizona border.

Where are the Adam’s, the Abe Lincoln’s the Winston Churchill’s of today? Men who are cpnsistently on the side of righteousness, who stand on the right side of issues, who can be counted on to make right choices and take right actions? These are the kinds of leaders America desperately needs.

The America we know and love exists because our Founders had a vision of and faith in a land of freedom and democracy, one they were able to turn into a great nation. These leaders communicated their vision to the people who, in turn, fully embraced and implemented it. Ronald Reagan embraced and communicated that  same vision when he said, “I have always believed that this anointed land was set apart in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent here between the oceans to be found by people from every corner of the earth who had a special love of faith and freedom.”

Many of the world’s elites will continue to find fault with the U.S. no matter what it does. But while they are holding us in contempt, illegal immigrants who have a “special love for faith, freedom and democracy” will ignore their criticisms and keep pouring across our southern border in record numbers. What do they know that the educated, privileged and powerful of this world refuse to see or acknowledge?

One hot summer’s day in Georgia I was standing on the sidewalk in front of Fort Benning’s Infantry Officer Candidate School Headquarters talking to a white classmate of mine about a racial flare up of some sort that had happened the previous day down in Texas. Unapologetically he said, “My Pappy back in Tennessee taught me that the reason you Negroes have to ride on the back of busses is because you are inferior.”

With my training it would have taken me less than a minute to permanently take him out, but I would have ended up in prison. And while the thought of vengeance was sweet, the penalty was so bitter that I just clenched my teeth, shut my mouth and walked away from him.

Three weeks later I stood on that same sidewalk and watched a bus pull away with that same white classmate on it; he waved to me and I waved back. He had been kicked out of the school for academic deficiencies. I stayed on, graduated, and rose through the ranks to Major General before retiring.

As a black American, back in the days before civil rights laws were passed and before Obama was even born, the least of my problems was “Racial Profiling.” In fact, I would have welcomed a little racial profiling in place of many of the indignities my family and I had to suffer. So please forgive me if I don’t seem overly sympathetic about “suspected” illegal immigrants in Arizona having to show identification papers if they commit a crime. Immigrants must adjust and conform to the society of their host country. The country is not required to adjust and conform to the values, traditions, religion and customs of the immigrant.

Supposedly being asked to show legal identification papers strikes fear into the heart of the immigrant community. The immigrants I know, including those from Europe, are made of sterner “stuff” than that, though. Throughout Europe legal citizens are asked to show identification for all sorts of things, and few take offense at the requirement. I know because my family and I lived in Europe for more than a decade.

The President of the United States and the nation’s governors are expected to protect America’s citizens. That’s what the Arizona state legislature was doing when it passed a law requiring suspected “illegals” to prove that their presence in the state is legal. And that’s what Governor Jan Brewer was doing when she signed that bill into law.

Unfortunately if the U.S. Congress and President Obama were doing their jobs properly they would have addressed and solved the problem of illegal immigration -- since it is a federal problem -- and the state of Arizona would not have been forced to do what they’re doing now.

No doubt many who are asked to show identification papers will turn out to be legal residents of the state of Arizona -- but so what?  If a highway patrolman stops one of us for speeding, we show our driver’s license and car registration and think nothing of it, unless it is to thank God that someone is checking “illegals.”

If showing papers to establish legality in the nation or state offends or angers someone, then so be it. That’s far safer than a suspicious person who was never stopped because the Highway Patrolman didn’t want to give offense, later going on to detonate a car bomb in downtown Phoenix.

I agree with Clarence W. Dupnik the sheriff of Pima County Tucson, Arizona, “What we need is assistance from the federal government in the form of effective strategies to secure the border. Additionally, the federal government must take up this issue in the form of comprehensive immigration reform policy.” To put it bluntly, our southern border is out of control and our President refuses to help us get it back under control.

It’s time for President Obama and the U.S. Congress to show some real leadership by getting control of our borders and the illegal immigrant problem. The fear of offending illegal immigrants by racial profiling at the expense of America’s security is grossly misplaced political correctness. And it is dangerous.

Many times lately I’ve read what will result should the trend in national fertility rates remain unchanged. Assuming these figures are correct, let’s try to make sense of how this will change our World. Since the nations are evolving along with the make up of America, it would be wise to pay attention.

 It is said that in order for a country to culturally mark time and maintain itself “as is” for more than twenty-five years, it must have a fertility rate of at least 2.11 children per family. Once a nation slips below an annual fertility rate of 1.9, the downward trend is believed to be irreversible.

When a family has only one child, that family has half as many children as its parents. If that child follows its parents’ example and it too has only one child, there will be one fourth as many grand children as grand parents. The irreversible declining fertility rate cycle will have begun.

In 2007 the French fertility rate was down to 1.8; England was down to 1.6; Greece was much worse, its fertility rate was down to 1.3. Germany’s rate matched that of Greece. Catholic Italy – a culture that supposedly does not approve of the use of contraceptives -- was down to 1.2. Spain, another Catholic country, was hopelessly down to 1.1.

The combined average fertility rate of thirty-one European countries is 1.38. Europe as we know it is well on its way toward extinction. Yet the European continent as a whole is not loosing population. How can this be?

Simply speaking, the mysterious culprit is immigration -- Islamic immigration. In a few more years, 2027, one in five Frenchmen will be Muslim. If we extrapolate, we find that in about 40 years, France will be an Islamic Republic. Nearly 50% of all children born in the Netherlands today are Muslim; and in about 15 years half the population of the Netherlands will be Muslim.

So what conclusion is to be drawn from all this? It is stark: in less than 20 years, one third of all European children born will be born to Muslim families. Germany expects to be a Muslim state by the year 2050. Some who now reside in Europe refer to it as Eurabia.

Here in North America, Canada and the United States share matched fertility rates of about 1.6 -- minus Latino immigration. Counting Latinos, the rate in the U.S. is about 2.1. Remember, the population replacement rate necessary to sustain a nation’s culture is 2.11.

In 1970 there were one hundred thousand Muslims living in Canada. If immigration rates continue unchanged, it is estimated that Canada will soon have nine million Muslims living within its borders. Thirty years from now, the United States could possibly be home to fifty million Muslims. That would cause America to be a very different nation from the one our Founders created.

Having denied our Christian heritage on more than one occasion, President Obama may be quite content for the United States to lose its national “Christian” identity status and to become a “Muslim” nation. In fact, that may be his long range goal. But Obama is only President; he is not the “American People.”

The real question is what does the average Tea Sipping, Bible toting, hunting rifle carrying, historically savvy American think about these developments? Obviously, our Founders would be quite alarmed by them.

If the average American citizen is content with this state of affairs, then nothing need be done. But for those of us who want to put a stop to these dangerous trends, there are several things that can and should be done. We can begin by electing a Congress and a President who will get control of our borders, so that they are no longer infiltrated by criminals, drug dealers and terrorists.

At the same time a moratorium should be placed on most legal immigration, including stopping the immigration of extended families to join a family member who is already legally living in the United States. Only when our borders are completely under control and our immigration policies fully enforced, should the avenues of legal immigration be restored. And our newly married citizens should be encouraged to have between two and three children per family instead of just one. Regardless of what President Obama has said, children aren’t “punishment.” They are a blessing and the key to America’s future.

Obviously our Founders didn’t envision the need for such harsh and drastic actions. They intended that the door of immigration be held open to all people all the time. They never foresaw the possibility that one day America’s Christian and moral underpinnings would be threatened and abandoned under the guise of political correctness or misguided religious tolerance. America needs to take a long, sober look at the future, and act accordingly.

Artificially cobbled together cities and nation states usually fail to maintain historical cohesion. Forced reconciliatory attempts result in temporary, unstable arrangements which do more harm than good in the long run. Poland’s “Free City of Danzig” and Czechoslovakia’s “Sudetenland” are two examples which Obama and the United Nations would do well to remember as they draw up artificial boundaries for Jerusalem and Palestine. Hopefully they will avoid copying the League of Nations-style weaknesses which in the past so encouraged aggressors and radicalized their supporters.

One result of WWI was that in 1920, the League of Nations declared the port of Danzig to be a “Free City” – free from the control of either Germany or Poland -- and placed it under the League’s protection. The Free City included roughly about two hundred smaller Polish towns and villages and guarded the mouth of the Vistula River, Poland’s only waterway access to the Baltic Sea. Danzig’s inner city population was mostly German; but the farther out from the center one traveled the more Polish the population became. This forced mixing of ethnic groups, languages and religions often caused national tensions within Danzig to escalate from time to time.

Coincident with Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1938, Danzig’s German population took advantage of the situation and declared that The Free City of Danzig had become part of Germany. In 1945, Soviet military forces overran Poland, defeated the German occupying armies and forced them to withdraw. The German name “Danzig” was then discarded and the Polish name “Gdansk” was adopted.

For several hundred years the Sudetenland, which consisted of the western crescent of Czechoslovakia, was part of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire – at least until 1866.  After WWI, however, the 1918 Treaty of Versailles mandated that the Sudetenland become part of Czechoslovakia.

The Sudetenland’s German population strenuously objected. They demanded the right of self-determination, declared themselves to be German and petitioned the League of Nations to let them unite with their German brothers and sisters. The League felt it knew better, though, and so forced Sudetenland’s Germans to become part of Czechoslovakia and to speak a language they knew not. As a result, the Sudetenland was never able to form itself into a single historic region on which to build a future, independent of Czechoslovakia.

Years passed and discontent festered. Finally, in a meeting in Munich in September, 1938, Great Britain and France ceded the ten thousand square miles of western Czechoslovakia, known as the Sudetenland, to Nazi Germany. The excuse was that this was not just another territorial power grab by Hitler, but that Hitler was only trying to protect the German population of the Sudetenland.

In return for this “favor,” Hitler promised not to make any further territorial claims on Europe. This was just about as believable as Iran’s claims that its nuclear development program is only for peaceful purposes. A month later the German Army marched in and took de facto possession of the Sudetenland. The League of Nations did nothing but talk, just as Obama and the UN are doing now.

Ignoring the benefit of hindsight, Obama and the UN are trying to come up with some seemingly great original solution for Jerusalem and Palestine. But history warns us that forcing religious and ethnic mixings never end up amicable and fair with all parties equally satisfied.

In fact, the situation that Jerusalem finds itself in today is much like the situation that Danzig faced just prior to WWII; the Palestinian situation of today eerily resembles the conditions that prevailed in pre-WWII Sudetenland. Just as the League failed to recognize that Danzig’s and Sudetenland’s situations were irreconcilable, Obama and the UN seem unable to see that the Jerusalem and Palestine situations of today may be equally irreconcilable. Instead, they are trying to blackmail Israel into giving up the West Bank and into making Jerusalem a kind of “Free City” under U.N. sponsorship and protection.

This artificially created and forcibly imposed solution did not work with Danzig and the Sudetenland prior to WWII, and it won’t work with Jerusalem and Palestine today. Synthetically created cities and nation states inevitably end up disasters. The Obama Administration needs to rethink what they are about in trying to manufacture and manipulate into existence a “Free City of Jerusalem” from Israel’s diverse populations of Arabs, Druze, Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Throughout history, artificially created cities and nation states have failed to coalesce into cohesive historical entities. The Free City of Danzig and Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland are perfect examples worthy of careful consideration and conscientious study. Unfortunately, by their inept and shortsighted handling of today’s Jerusalem and Palestinian problems, it seems that Obama and the UN are determined to repeat histories’ past failures.