President Donald J. Trump’s Plan to ‘Make America Bourgeois Again’

President Trump ran on an America first platform. His mantra was MAGA – Make America Great Again. President Trump in his inaugural address said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

When President Trump attends a rally, speaks at a press conference or Tweets, he is talking directly to America’s “bourgeois class.” Bourgeois is defined as “a member of the middle class.”

Who will make America great, again?

In an August 9th, 2017 Philadelphia Inquirer article titled Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture Amy Wax and Larry Alexander defined America’s bourgeois culture. Wax and Alexander wrote,

That [bourgeois] culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

Supporters of Barack Obama at a rally.

Politicians have wooed the bourgeois class as did former President Barack Obama. Once elected, however, the bourgeois class have been either ignored or suffered under various administrations.

In a April 22nd, 2014 New York Times column titled Losing the Lead: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy reported:

The American middle [bourgeois] class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The bourgeois class is President Trump’s base and the bedrock of people who will make America great again.

What are the challenges to making America bourgeois again?

Wax and Alexander pointed out in their article:

Did everyone abide by those [bourgeois culture] precepts? Of course not. There are always rebels — and hypocrites, those who publicly endorse the norms but transgress them. But as the saying goes, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Even the deviants rarely disavowed or openly disparaged the prevailing expectations.

Today there are many “deviants” who openly disavow and disparage the most basic bourgeois cultural norms.

Who are the bourgeois culture deviants? Who are the hypocrites? Who are the transgressors? Here is a short list:

  1. Those who labled the $1,000 bonuses given to workers as “crumbs.”
  2. Hollywood which no longer makes films about the bourgeois class.
  3. Those who do not serve their country and are openly unpatriotic.
  4.  Those who would rather be idle rather than work
  5. Those politicians who subsidize idleness and sloth.
  6. Those who create sanctuaries for those who abuse drugs and other addictive substances.
  7. Those who on radio, television, in music and during the day use course language.
  8. Those who are not respectful of the duly elected President of these United States.

Wax and Alexander noted:

[T]hose adults with influence over the [bourgeois] culture, for a variety of reasons, abandoned their role as advocates for respectability, civility, and adult values. As a consequence, the counterculture made great headway, particularly among the chattering classes — academics, writers, artists, actors, and journalists — who relished liberation from conventional constraints and turned condemning America and reviewing its crimes into a class marker of virtue and sophistication.

Making America Bourgeois Again!

President Trump and his administration have made it their sole mission to restore America’s bourgeois class. Washington, D.C. does not want to empower the bourgeois class because as President Trump pointed out during his inaugural address,

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

Today there is much to celebrate, especially for the bourgeois class. Make America Bourgeois Again!

RELATED VIDEO: Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) staying tax cuts are unpatriotic.

Illegal Alien Gamed the Immigration System and now the United States is Suing Itself

Once again I have written an article about how an alien easily gamed the immigration system and ultimately became a United States citizen, demonstrating that immigration fraud is at least as serious a vulnerability as is the U.S.-Mexican border.

While there were no allegations that the alien who is the focus of my article today was linked to terrorism, he is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country that has a nexus to terrorist groups.

To this point, on December 15, 2017 the Wall Street Journal published an article,

“New U.S.-Backed Force Leads Terrorism Fight in Bangladesh: Failed terror attack by Bangladeshi in New York leads U.S.-backed unit to hunt for extremist ties in South Asian country.”

On January 16, 2018, the Justice Department issued a press release: “DOJ, DHS Report: Three Out of Four Individuals Convicted of International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Offenses were Foreign-Born.”

What may be even more disconcerting than the title is that the press release also included this statistical analysis:

Breaking down the 549 individuals by citizenship status at the time of their respective convictions reveals that:

• 254 were not U.S. citizens;

• 148 were foreign-born, naturalized and received U.S. citizenship; and,

• 147 were U.S. citizens by birth.

According to information available to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), since September 11, 2001, there were approximately 1,716 removals of aliens with national security concerns.

The statistics did not disclose how many of the 1,716 aliens acquired lawful status in the U.S. other than citizenship, including lawful immigrant status.

Today’s case is particularly egregious but before we delve into the details of this particular case let’s consider that even if that wall is built, an alien who has been granted lawful immigrant status and especially an alien who is granted U.S. citizenship won’t care if that wall is as tall as a skyscraper and topped with electrified concertina wire.

Aliens who are granted resident alien status and U.S. citizenship can simply stroll into a port of entry, whether it is along the problematic U.S.-Mexican border, the Canadian border, a seaport, or an international airport and be greeted warmly by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors.

Back when I was an INS special agent I used to joke that you could easily tell the difference between a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” Good guys wake up and go through their clothing to figure out what they want to wear that day, while bad guys go through their stuff to decide on who they want to be that day.

Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” gave rise to arguably one of the most famous questions ever asked, “What’s in a name?

Our names are given to us birth and identify us throughout our lives.

However, criminals and terrorists frequently use numerous false names for the same reason that a chameleon changes its colors, to hide in plain sight — perhaps as a method of survival or as a means of enabling it to hide among its intended next meal, a hapless creature that wanders too close.

When we think of the arrest process we think about how law enforcement officers photograph and fingerprint those who are arrested to make certain that they properly identify that person. That issue is of such concern because criminals frequently use multiple identities, that biometrics, such as DNA, are now additionally being used.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 terrorists, in the aggregate, used more than 360 false identities and/or variations of false identities as an embedding tactic, to facilitate their preparations for the deadly terror attacks to come.

Not unlike the chameleons, criminal and terrorists use changes in identity the way that those chameleon “quick change artists” use changes in coloration to hide in plain sight among their intended victims.

On February 15, 2018, the Justice Department issued a press release, “Department of Justice Files Complaint to Denaturalize Diversity Visa Recipient Who Obtained Naturalized Citizenship After Failing to Disclose Two Prior Orders of Removal.”

That press release and the Complaint to Revoke Naturalization serves not only as an indictment of the criminal misconduct of the alien in this case, but serves as an indictment of the competency of a division of the Department of Homeland Security.

The defendant in this case, Md Humayun Kabir Talukder, a/k/a Ganu Miah, a/k/a Shafi Uddin succeeded in gaming the adjudications process at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) thus becoming a naturalized citizen.

He lied in his application and interview when he failed to disclose that he had been previously ordered deported from the United States, twice and under two names.

Incredibly, the adjudications officers who handled his case did not know about these lies until after he was granted the “Keys to the kingdom” that United States citizenship represents.

From the very beginning, his interactions with the U.S. government were based on lies and falsehoods and deception, yet he ran rings around our federal agencies. He initially sought entry into the United States in 1992 at John F. Kennedy International Airport in NYC (where I began my career with the INS), with a passport that was not issued to him. Incredibly, when his attempt to game the entry process was discovered, he was permitted to leave the airport so that he could show up at a later date to seek political asylum.

He was subsequently ordered deported under two different names and yet, he became a naturalized citizen in 2004, more than two and a half years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

It is all too common for individuals to seek to game not only the immigration system but all government systems. However, we expect our federal agencies to be able to ferret out those criminals who attempt to defraud various government agencies and programs, especially when those system and agencies are involved with national security.

In this case we see just how easily the immigration systems were defrauded, leading to the almost comical but certainly disquieting charge in the Complaint to Revoke Naturalization:

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is the United States of America, suing on behalf of itself.

5. Defendant is a naturalized United States citizen, and purports to be a native and former citizen of Bangladesh.

Here the United States of America is suing the United States of America because of clear and unequivocal evidence of incompetence by an agency of the federal government that has a serious national security-related mission!

Here is the paragraph from the DOJ press release that lays out the tangled web of deception that enabled him to successfully game the immigration system and acquire United States citizenship:

The complaint alleges Humayun Kabir Rahman arrived in the United States in February 1992 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, claiming his true name was Ganu Miah while in possession of a passport that did not belong to him. He was paroled into the United States so he could seek asylum, and his application was referred to the immigration court where an immigration judge ordered him removed in 1998. In 1994, while Ganu Miah’s proceeding was underway, Rahman sought asylum under a different name, Shafi Uddin. That application was also referred to the immigration court, and he was ordered to be removed in 1997. Later in 1997, using his third identity, Md Humayun Kabir Talukder, Rahman applied for and received an immigrant visa through the diversity visa program, claiming he had entered the United States by car from Canada. In 2004, he applied for and was granted permanent resident status, which he ultimately used to become a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2004. Throughout his immigration and naturalization proceedings, Rahman concealed that he had twice been ordered removed and lied about his identity and immigration history under oath. Rahman was also never lawfully admitted to the permanent resident status upon which he naturalized.

In the wake of the slaughter of 17 people in Florida some politicians have challenged the ability to conduct background checks of those who seek to purchase firearms. However, no mention is ever made of the fatally flawed vetting system whereby aliens are admitted into the United States and provided with various immigration benefits including citizenship.

President Trump, who made a strong case for vetting aliens who seek to enter the United States, has ignored the vetting process that would be called into action for the adjudication of aliens under the DACA and other programs he now advocates for potentially millions of illegal aliens.

This was, in fact, the focus of my recent article, “DACA Solution Must Heed 9/11 Commission Findings.”

My concerns about immigration fraud and visa fraud have been paramount in my testimony before several Congressional hearings and in my testimony for the 9/11 Commission and was the theme for another of my articles, “Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.”

This statement in the news release provided by Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler for the Justice Department’s Civil Division will serve as the summation for my article today:

“As our country’s leaders debate the future of our immigration system, this alleged case of a decade of defrauding the United States to obtain citizenship is particularly alarming.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on NewsMax.com.

Why 14 GOP Senators Voted Against President Trump’s Immigration Framework

President Donald Trump’s plan to control borders — as outlined in his State of the Union speech — was put into legislation and carried by Sen. Charles Grassley. But it went down in flames, and 14 Republicans are in part to blame for its failure.

Now the country’s back where it started, facing a budget fight this March, round-the-robin talks on immigration, and a Democratic-controlled process, despite the fact Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress.

Whom to blame?

Well, for starters, the 14 Republican senators who jumped ship on Trump’s plan.

From the Hill:

President Trump’s immigration framework faced an unexpected opponent this week as it crashed on the Senate floor: Republicans.

The opposition from more than a fourth of the GOP conference came despite an intense pressure campaign by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shot down back-to-back bipartisan offers.

In the end, 14 GOP senators rejected Trump’s proposal, helping make it the least popular of the Senate’s competing measures.

Here’s a look at the GOP senators who bucked Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Barrasso, who is up for reelection in 2018, was one of two members of GOP leadership to oppose Trump’s plan. His vote came roughly a day after he called the White House framework “very generous.”

“I want to make sure that we have a secure border. I want to make sure that the laws are enforced and I want to make sure our citizens are safe,” he told Fox News this week.

A spokeswoman for Barrasso didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the conservative senator has said he believes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins was at the center of a bipartisan group that negotiated for months to come up with a rival plan to Trump’s. Hours before the votes, DHS warned that the proposal would undermine the rule of law and the White House threatened to veto the Common Sense Coalition’s plan.

“I’m personally very disappointed in the administration’s response,” Collins said.

The bipartisan group’s amendment has serious policy differences from the White House plan.

It doesn’t touch the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program and included narrow changes to family-based immigration that would have been limited to DACA recipients.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2018, repeatedly took shots at the framework because it included a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants, which he considers “amnesty.”

The opposition from more than a fourth of the GOP conference came despite an intense pressure campaign by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shot down back-to-back bipartisan offers.

In the end, 14 GOP senators rejected Trump’s proposal, helping make it the least popular of the Senate’s competing measures.

Here’s a look at the GOP senators who bucked Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Barrasso, who is up for reelection in 2018, was one of two members of GOP leadership to oppose Trump’s plan. His vote came roughly a day after he called the White House framework “very generous.”

“I want to make sure that we have a secure border. I want to make sure that the laws are enforced and I want to make sure our citizens are safe,” he told Fox News this week.

A spokeswoman for Barrasso didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the conservative senator has said he believes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins was at the center of a bipartisan group that negotiated for months to come up with a rival plan to Trump’s. Hours before the votes, DHS warned that the proposal would undermine the rule of law and the White House threatened to veto the Common Sense Coalition’s plan.

“I’m personally very disappointed in the administration’s response,” Collins said.

The bipartisan group’s amendment has serious policy differences from the White House plan.

It doesn’t touch the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program and included narrow changes to family-based immigration that would have been limited to DACA recipients.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2018, repeatedly took shots at the framework because it included a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants, which he considers “amnesty.”

“I find myself flabbergasted at where my own party is in this debate because every proposal that has Republican support that has been submitted begins from a place markedly to the left of President Obama,” Cruz said ahead of the Senate’s votes.

Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.)

Daines doesn’t support the DACA program and has said he doesn’t want to see it extended.

“I don’t support extending the DACA program. This was an unconstitutional act that President Obama [did] via executive order when he was president and I hope that we can find a solution going forward here that is broader than just the issue on DACA,” he told Montana Public Radio earlier this year.

Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)

A spokesman for Enzi said he opposed the immigration amendments offered “because he felt they did not properly address” illegal immigration.

“He has said that Congress needs to ensure that our immigration laws are compassionate, especially to children, but also fair to American citizens. He believes there are lawful ways for individuals to earn citizenship and that people who want to come to this country need to follow them,” the spokesman said.

Enzi, who previously called DACA “unconstitutional,” also thinks immigration reform is “best dealt with in small pieces, instead of comprehensive legislation,” his aide said.

Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)

Flake was heavily involved with the bipartisan immigration negotiations and has been one of the loudest critics of the White House’s framework over concerns about its restrictions on legal immigration.

He told reporters this week that while the White House’s framework should be part of the “discussion,” the Senate needed to work out its own plan.

And he’s doubling down on his short-term patch following the Senate’s failed votes, which would pair a three-year DACA extension with border security funding.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.)

Inhofe opposed each of the Senate’s three immigration plans, while backing a push to limit federal funding to “sanctuary cities.” He said the White House plan “made a number of important reforms” including boosting security at the border and limiting family-based immigration.

“[But] I’ve consistently stated that I could not support an immigration bill that puts illegal immigrants ahead of the men and women who have followed our laws and have applied for citizenship legally,” he said.

The White House framework, spearheaded in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), created a 10-12 year path to citizenship for roughly 1.8 million immigrants brought into the country illegally as children.

Sen. John Kennedy (La.)

Kennedy said on Twitter that he opposed the Senate’s immigration proposals “because none of them prioritized border security.”

Both the White House framework and the bipartisan coalition’s plan included $25 billion in border security.

Kennedy supported Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) amendment to limit funding to jurisdictions that don’t follow federal immigration law.

He also offered several of his own amendments, which didn’t get a vote, including requiring the census to include questions about nationality and immigration status.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)

Lee said after the Senate’s votes that Congress needs a “balanced approach to the DACA program.”

“One that discourages future illegal immigration while also offering a compassionate solution to current DACA recipients. None of the plans that addressed DACA today achieved that balance,” he added.

Many conservative lawmakers, as well as their allies off Capitol Hill, balked over the administration’s decision to extend citizenship to DACA recipients and expand the total number of immigrants potentially covered from roughly 700,000 to 1.8 million.

Sen. Jerry Moran (Kansas)

Asked why Moran didn’t back the president’s plan, a spokesman noted the GOP senator supports a fallback option he is working on with Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and John Thune (R-S.D.).

Their plan is significantly narrower than the White House framework. It provides a permanent extension of legal status, but not citizenship, only for current DACA recipients. It is tied to a $25 billion border security trust fund.

Moran noted in a statement announcing the immigration plan that the measures “must not inadvertently encourage further illegal immigration.”

He didn’t directly address the White House framework, but some conservatives argue that extending legal protections to the broader 1.8 million population encourages more illegal immigration.

The Moran-Thune-Portman proposal, by comparison, would limit legal protections to current DACA recipients, or roughly 700,000 immigrants.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Murkowski, one of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans, was part of the Common Sense Coalition and supported the group’s plan to pair a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants to $25 billion in border security and limited changes to family-based immigration.

She added after the plan failed that it would have offered a “path forward.” “I am extremely disappointed that the Senate failed to advance our bipartisan proposal that provided both certainty for the Dreamers and critical improvements to border security,” she said.

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)

Paul voted against each of the Senate’s immigration proposals, including the White House plan.

His votes came after he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week that he was debating offering a conservative House plan crafted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) as an amendment.

“We’re discussing that in our office, whether or not we ought to put that forward as an alternative,” he said.

Goodlatte’s plan would provide DACA recipients with a temporary, renewable legal status — rather than citizenship — in exchange for authorizing funding for Trump’s border wall, ending family-based migration and scrapping the diversity visa lottery program.

It would also crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, boost penalties for deported criminals who try to re-enter the U.S. and require that employers use an electronic verification system known as E-Verify to make sure they hire legal workers.

Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.)

Sasse told the Lincoln Journal Star that he opposed “left-of-center proposals” taken up by the Senate on Thursday.

“I ran as a conservative and I’ll vote as a conservative,” he said.

Sasse added there could still be a path toward a “much simpler legislative package” that pairs protections for DACA recipients and secures the border.

Sen. John Thune (S.D.)

Thune is the highest ranking GOP senator to vote against the White House’s immigration proposal.

The No. 3 GOP senator has endorsed a narrower solution for weeks. On Thursday afternoon he announced that he, Moran and Portman had filed an amendment that would extend the legal protections of current DACA recipients while giving the White House money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“Immigration policy is not easy, as this week has shown, but I’m confident that with a bill like the one we’ve just put forward, we’ll be able to find consensus among Republicans and Democrats,” he said in a statement.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

U.S. State Department not yet concerned about sexual harassment allegations involving refugee agency it funds

That is what Breitbart’s Michael Patrick Leahy is reporting about his efforts to get an answer from the major funding source for the nine federal contractors*** hired by State for the US Refugee Admissions Program.  Leahy’s story is entitled:

U.S. Government Continues to Fund Refugee Resettlement NGO Whose Funding Has Been Frozen by the U.K.

(We reported on the mess the International Refugee Committee is in with its British funding, here.)

miliband and soros 2 (2) close

Miliband and Soros in 2013.

Here is some of what Leahy is reporting after attempting to get something definitive from the State Department:

The government of the United Kingdom has frozen all payments to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), one of the largest non-profit refugee resettlement agencies in the world, pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of “sexual harassment and fraud” in the organization.

As one of the nine voluntary agencies (VOLAGs) that have for decades received about $1 billion annually from the U.S. federal government, the IRC is also heavily funded by American taxpayers.

The IRC is the third VOLAG in the last six months to come under scrutiny for questions surrounding its leadership and management.

[….]

The management and leadership of former U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who has served as CEO of the IRC since 2013 and receives an annual salary of $671,000, is now under serious question, and his ability to maintain his current job is uncertain.

The State Department offered no indication that it intends to stop funding the IRC, despite the actions of the U.K government when asked specifically by Breitbart News if the U.S. government currently has plans to immediately stop making payments to the IRC to conduct refugee resettlement operations in the United States.

“The Department of State takes very seriously the prevention and response of all accusations of sexual exploitation and abuse,” a State Department spokesperson told Breitbart News when asked if the U.S. government intends to follow the lead of the U.K. government in suspending payments to the IRC pending the results of an investigation.

[….]

The State Department has not responded to this follow up question from Breitbart News: Now that the allegations of abuse against the IRC have been brought to the State Department’s attention, what specifically is the State Department doing to ensure the IRC is taking the necessary steps to address the issue appropriately?

Continue reading here.

Quick, someone tell the IRC’s new partner—Sesame Street!

See my David Miliband archive by clicking here.

If the IRC does have any government funds frozen, even temporarily, it will be a blow to their subcontractors (working in cities below) that are wholly dependent on the IRC mothership in Manhattan. (IRC website):

IRC offices

*** These are the nine federally funded refugee agencies operating in the US.

The number in parenthesis is the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees and get them signed up for their services (aka welfare)!  From most recent accounting, here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The IRC is one of the charities closely-linked to George Soros’ push to drive aliens into European Union (EU) nations.

Bipartisan efforts underway to support Samaritan’s Purse exec for top UN refugee job

Brave Israeli journalist disguised as Syrian ‘refugee’ enters German belly of the beast

Aliens Who Didn’t Register Under DADA: ‘Lazy’ or Committing Fraud?

The President’s Chief of Staff, Gen. John Kelly, recently raised some eyebrows when he postulated that many illegal aliens who could have applied to participate in the Obama administration’s illegal DACA program may have simply been too lazy to apply for temporary lawful status when the program was in effect.

Although General Kelly had a highly successful and laudable record of service to our nation in the United States Marine Corps, he never enforced nor administered our nation’s immigration laws.  His lack of experience and subsequent lack of understanding about the challenges that confront those who enforce and administer our immigration laws have apparently caused him to come to a very wrong and, indeed, dangerous conclusion, which may have influenced President Trump’s decision to provide lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship to three times as many aliens as were covered by the Obama administration’s DACA program.

Gen. Kelly may not realize that many of those applicants may be successfully gaming the immigration system by committing immigration fraud.  They didn’t enroll not because they were lazy but because they weren’t present in the United States during the enrollment period and would falsely claim they were if a new program were to take effect.  Indeed, if this program is created, many applicants might enter the United States in the months ahead, but claim they have been here for years.

On February 7, 2018 Politifact posted an articleIn Context: John Kelly’s remarks on ‘lazy’ immigrants and DACA, that included this paragraph that was critical of Kelly and the President:

Kelly’s remarks drew criticism from lawmakers and advocates for immigrant rights who countered that the DACA population is hard-working and that the Trump administration is attempting to demonize immigrants.

That brief paragraph contains a major falsehood that, for decades, has permeated discussions and news coverage about the immigration crisis.  The article referred to “advocates for immigrant rights” who were angered by Kelly’s statement, however, illegal aliens are not immigrants.  That bit of semantic “sleight of language” of referring to all aliens as “immigrants” was devised during the Carter administration, as I noted in a previous article.  The misuse of language is not about being “politically correct,” but about being Orwellian, employing Newspeak tactics to alter understandings and thoughts by altering language.

True immigrants already have “rights” in the United States. They are lawfully present and were placed on the pathway to United States citizenship the day that lawful immigrant status was conferred upon them.  In order to qualify to become naturalized citizens, should they desire to do so, they would have to meet certain other requirements such as meeting time requirements in the United States and possessing “good moral conduct” as established in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The reporter who described the motivation behind Gen. Kelly’s statement as seeking to “demonize immigrants” was so eager to hurl criticisms at the Trump administration that she ignored that Gen. Kelly was likely simply being naive and, in that naivety, Kelly overlooked the real problem: the fact that many of these aliens may be committing fraud and were not actually present in the United States during the enrollment program during the Obama administration.

General Kelly lacks understanding about immigration, not because he isn’t intelligent, but because he lacks the experiences in immigration that my 30 years with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have provided me.  This includes a one-year assignment to a pilot program with the unit that adjudicated the petitions U.S. citizens and resident aliens file for their alien spouses to receive lawful immigrant status in the United States.

To provide a bit of background, management at the INS in 1973 found that the number of such petitions had sky-rocketed and there were serious concerns about high levels of fraud being behind the surge in applications.  The idea behind the pilot program was to make certain the petitioners and their spouses were actually living in a marital relationship.  Aliens who were found to have been engaged in marriage fraud were immediately taken into custody and detained for deportation hearings.  Within a few months the numbers of applications plummeted as the aliens came to the understanding that there would be consequences for participating in a fraud conspiracy.  You could call this deterrence through enforcement.  Laws only matter when those who violate the law know that they will face severe consequences.

Today, however, the number of such aliens and hence the applications are so great, no in-person interviews would be possible.  No field investigations would be possible.  The Adjudications Officers would have to make their decisions solely by reviewing applications and supporting documents provided by “undocumented” aliens.  The veracity of these documents may be impossible to determine and, since nearly all of these documents do not include any biometric identifiers, it wold be all but impossible to know if the documents even actually relate to the alien applying for lawful status.

These aliens may well be imposters.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first congressional hearing.  The House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the issue of Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application Fraud. When the Chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Lamar Smith, asked me if I had encountered a common problem during my tenure as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Examiner (the position now referred to as Adjudications Officers) and as an Immigration Special Agent, I replied by stating that imposters were a major concern.

Here we are more than twenty years after that hearing and we still have a huge and deadly problem created by our inability to always be certain as the true identities of applicants for visas and immigration benefits.

Incidentally, that hearing in 1997 was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in the United States in 1993.  In January 1993 a Pakistani national gained entry into the parking lot of  CIA Headquarters in Virginia and opened fire with an AK-47, killing two CIA officers and wounding three others.  The next month a bombing at the World Trade Center killed six innocent victims and injured more than one thousand people and inflicted an estimated half-billion dollars in damages and nearly toppled one of the 110-story buildings.

Both attacks were carried out by aliens from the Middle East who had gamed various elements of the immigration system.  The apparent ringleader of the World Trade Center attack, Mahmud Abouhalima, as the Los Angeles Times reported on March 25, 1993, was the beneficiary of the 1986 Reagan amnesty. He gained lawful status under the Special Agricultural provisions of that massive amnesty program, which as principally authored and ram-rodded through Congress by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer.

These aliens may be in their mid-30’s, hence, there would be no way of knowing if they actually entered the United States before they were 16 years of age or entered the United States recently and are simply lying about their dates of entry.  No record of entry is created when aliens evade the inspections process at ports of entry.

President Trump was absolutely spot-on in his insistence that the United States not admit aliens who cannot be vetted.  This was the fundamental concern behind his Executive Order that came to be labeled a “Travel Ban,” which should have been referred to as an “Entry Restriction.” Furthermore, these aliens are citizens from countries around the world, as reported by the DHS.

Let us not forget that aliens who run our borders do not enter “undocumented,” a term that could have been devised by Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.  These aliens enter the United States without inspection and without vetting.  Their presence in the United States remains unknown to our government until perhaps they commit a crime or participate in some other nefarious act.

Finally, an application for an immigration benefit can be approved in just minutes while the denial of an application can take days or longer.  Denied applications may be subject to an appeal and therefore denials require extensive paperwork, reviewed by government attorneys, in anticipation of such challenges. This creates a huge incentive to approve nearly all of these applications to keep up with the flood of applications.

All factors considered, as I noted my recent article, any DACA solution must heed the 9/11 Commission findings, which pointed out how our immigration system’s vulnerabilities were exploited in the 2001 terrorist attacks. Fraud that will likely be committed by future DACA applicants, especially those who mysteriously failed to take advantage of the program while it was originally in effect, is a very serious concern that must be addressed with open eyes.

RELATED ARTICLE: Immigration as a Left-Wing Political Strategy

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Front Page Magazine.

How Chain Migration Will Create a Permanent Democrat Majority

Republicans who want to kill chain migration — and it’s no wonder.

Democrats see chain migration as their most powerful tool in the war on conservatism.

The logic is that if they bring in enough migrants, they’ll be able to secure a Democrat voting base for generations to come. And they’ve been largely successful in winning this war in recent years.

Conservative Review has more:

Our Founders were very clear that they intended naturalization to be controlled by the federal government instead of by the states, as it had been under the Articles of Confederation, because they wanted stricter standards, not looser standards. While there were several motivations for this principle, the overarching reason was that they wanted to ensure the voting populace would consist of those who shared our democratic-republican values.

Even though immigrants back then were all from the same European stock as the current Americans, Theodore Sedgewick said during the debate on the 1790 naturalization bill that “their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments, may deprive them of that zest for pure republicanism, which is necessary in order to taste its beneficence with that gratitude which we feel on the occasion.” Madison spoke of admitting only those “who are attached to our Country by its natural and political advantages.”

Jefferson feared they would “bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth…These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The solution to this problem is having a gradual and balanced immigration system based on merit and shared values. Instead, the endless cycles of illegal immigration, amnesties, and back-door amnesty-style programs (asylum, temporary protected status, refugees), in conjunction with chain migration, has made our immigration system work for foreigners, not for citizens, realizing the worst nightmares of our founders.

Look no further than California to understand how immigration done wrong can lead to a permanent majority of anti-life, pro-big-government Democrats. The problem is that many other states are headed down the same path, in a slower but inexorable trajectory. If the same policies continue, if chain migration is not immediately halted, conservatives will find themselves in the minority nationwide, and no other issue will matter. Even though the Republican Party is not conservative, it is perceived as such and should take heed of the obvious warning signs.

No, this is not like the great immigration wave of the last century

There has been a lot of focus in recent years on the number of green cards issued each year, but not on the number of people becoming citizens. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has admitted roughly 700,000-800,000 citizens into our voting population every year, with a few years reaching one million. Most of them have come from countries with dramatically different worldviews on issues such as guns, health care, and the size of government. Many deniers within the GOP of the political problems of mass migration point to past history and saying our previous large wave of immigration didn’t create a permanent liberal majority. But that is because we are now dwarfing the previous great wave in numbers.

Even during the highest naturalization years of the great wave, we admitted anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 new citizens to our electorate. In other words, even during the great wave, when there were some years we admitted roughly as many annual immigrants as we do today, that era of immigration didn’t result in as many people becoming citizens. Some of this had to do with life expectancy, but either way, the wave didn’t result in nearly as many naturalizations. And even the peak period of naturalization was not only much smaller but only lasted for a short period of time.

From 1996 to 2013, 12,609,174 new immigrants became citizens. During the actual great wave, the number of naturalizations was still very low because it took time for them to go through the system and become citizens. But even if you take an equivalent 18-year period with the highest level of naturalizations, which was from 1928 to1945, just 3,835,758 immigrants were naturalized. In other words, while the immigration wave of the modern era was 66 percent larger than the great wave, the “naturalization wave” was 329 percent greater.

Moreover, we have not even actualized the full extent of this wave of immigration, which is still growing.

Finally, let’s not forget that because of the shutoff in the ’20s, the peak of naturalizations resulting from the great wave coincided with a cool-off in new immigration. Contrast that to today’s wave of naturalizations that are coinciding with an even larger wave of new admissions from similar areas. This ensures a lack of assimilation into our constitutional values. Although immigrants have always voted for more liberal politicians, enough of them were moving on to the second generation and becoming conservatives. The ’30s and ’40s, when the highest numbers of great wave immigrants were becoming voting members of society, was the lowest of our new immigration levels. As noted immigration historian Maldwyn Allen Jones observed, “With reinforcements no longer arriving from across the ocean, ties with Europe were gradually weakened and memories of the old life grew dimmer with each passing year.” This dynamic “accelerated the Americanization of those groups which had come earlier.”

That is changing because the numbers are too great, the welfare state too expansive, and the immigrants dramatically and disproportionately coming from impoverished lands.

Let’s explore the results of this wave as it relates to critical states electorally, and you will see why it is so hard for Republicans to crack the blue firewall. This is somewhat old data, and the trajectory is growing every year:

What is self-evident from this data is not only the danger of Republicans losing places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona. It’s not only an explanation of why Republicans lost Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. It also foreshadows what will happen to North Carolina, Georgia, and beyond. As late as 1990, the foreign-born population of Virginia was just five percent. It swelled to 11.4 percent in 2010 and is still surging, as high as 12.3 percent in 2016. While Virginia has experienced an influx of already-American liberals over the past two decades, that would only explain why it’s a marginal red state or even a purple state, not why it’s become a blue state.

Now take a look at the numbers and recent trajectory from Georgia. Again, there is an influx of American white liberals from other states as well as a general increase in black turnout. But immigration is what is going to paint those states purple.

Trump talks about shutting off chain migration 10 to 15 years from now, but the reality is that just the existing trajectory will paint the map blue.

While not every state will become as blue as California, the lessons of the Golden State should be a stark warning for what happens with salad-bowl rather than melting-pot immigration. Orange County, California, was once the bread basket of GOP dominance in California. As late as 1988, George H.W. Bush won more than twice as many votes as Democrat Michael Dukakis there. As late as 2004, when the broader state was long gone, George W. Bush won it by 20 points. Republicans narrowly carried it for the next two elections, until they downright lost it by 8 points in 2016.

What happened? In 1980, 12.7 percent of the county was foreign-born. In 2016, an estimated 30 percent of the county was foreign-born, and 45.6 percent of its residents speak a foreign language at home. Orange County, California, will now be blue forever.

Although California is lost forever, Texas and Florida are both independently vital to the GOP’s relevance. Dallas County, Texas, for example, has gone from 5 percent foreign-born in 1980 to 23 percent in 2016. Reagan won the county by 59.2 percent in 1980, while Trump lost it by a whopping 26 points in 2016. Sure, some of this has to do with Trump’s particular weakness with some college-educated urban/suburban white voters, and he has compensated for it by running up margins elsewhere. But the influx of unprecedented immigration has gradually and relentlessly shifted a number of counties to the Democrats over the past few elections.

One cannot escape the conclusion that unless there is a cool-off on overall immigration, the unprecedented size and duration of this wave, constantly reinforcing itself, will ensure that there are not enough second-generation voters assimilating into constitutional values to offset the new influx voting for big government. This is a clear distinction from past waves of immigration.

Of course, conservatives need to reach out to all new voters from all parts of the world to sell their message. But numbers and time matter greatly. Constitutional values can be sold to a melting pot of Americans; it will not resonate with a salad bowl.

The bottom line is this: There are many good policy reasons to cool down mass migration at this point. We need a more balanced immigration system for cultural, economic, and security reasons. But for Republicans who don’t care about policy and only care about political survival, they must understand that unless they change their tune on immigration and do so immediately, they and their party will become completely irrelevant.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here. The featured image is from a CNN video on chain migration.

As President Trump shrinks refugee program, 20 resettlement offices are closing in CA, FL, NY, TX and Massachusetts

“We’ve never seen a cut of this size and also a cut of this impact.” – Hans Van de Weerd an executive at the International Rescue Committee.

The slated closures, which are being reviewed by the State Department for final approval, follow President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically reduce the number of refugees that will be allowed into the United States in 2018.

Warning! Although this is news you will find valuable, especially if you live near one of the soon-to-be-closed resettlement sites, remember that this is temporary and when Trump is no longer in the White House, the refugee industry will go in to high gear to make up for what they will call the lost Trump years!

In order for that not to happen, CONGRESS must dump or reform the Refugee Act of 1980! 

Reuters is reporting the impending closure of 20 offices.

Demonstrating that elections have consequences, it was only in 2016 that the State Department was on a high attempting to add about 47 offices to their roster of resettlement towns and cities.  Now this….

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Refugee resettlement agencies*** are preparing to shutter more than 20 offices across the United States and cut back operations in more than 40 others after the State Department told them to pare their operations, according to plans seen by Reuters.

Hans van de weerd facebook

It should come as no surprise to you that refugee contractor employees like Hans here also support illegal aliens getting amnesty. It isn’t about humanitarian concern for refugees, but is about flooding America with immigrants, like Hans himself.

The State Department has said the drop in refugee numbers, from the 110,000 ceiling set by the Obama administration to 45,000 for 2018, means the country no longer needs all of the 324 resettlement offices that were operating at the end of 2017. This year’s cap on refugees is the lowest since 1980.

The offices, run by private non-profit agencies that contract with the U.S. government, provide a range of services to refugees, from assisting them in finding housing and jobs, to helping them navigate banking, medical care, school enrollment and other complexities of life in America. [Complexities=getting their welfare!—ed]

Opponents of the resettlement program say it is more costly to resettle refugees in the United States than it is to give aid to displaced people overseas.

“The changes will consolidate smaller affiliates, reduce costs and simplify management structures to help the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program run in a way that is fiscally responsible and sustainable in the long term,” State Department spokeswoman Cheryl Harris said in an email.

[….]

“We’ve never seen a cut of this size and also a cut of this impact,” said Hans Van de Weerd an executive at the International Rescue Committee, one of the nine resettlement agencies. [Why isn’t newshound Miliband quoted?—ed]

While the size of the U.S. refugee program has fluctuated over the years, it has never seen an across-the-board cut to dozens of offices in such a short period of time, he said.

Van de Weerd said the cuts could make it difficult for the United States to ramp up refugee numbers in the future. “It took years to build up this capacity,” he said. “Once you break it down it’s not easy to build it up again.”

Continue reading here.

Below is a screenshot of a portion of a very useful graphic Reuters has prepared. Click here to see the entire page.

Screenshot (203)

***These are the nine federal contractors which refer to themselves as VOLAGs (Voluntary agencies, Ha! Ha!) which will lose some of their subcontractor offices (see list here before it is revised). The number in parenthesis is the percentage of federal funding each gets to place refugees in your towns.

They are paid by the refugee head thus the focus on Trump’s admission numbers.

VIDEOS: Pro-refugee Activist Admits She Was Wrong

She was enthusiastic about the Muslim “refugees” entering Germany and even founded an organization to aid them. Now Rebecca Sommer — whom the migrants called “the stupid German whore” behind her back — has changed her tune. She says that the newcomers won’t shed “their medieval view,” are developing “parallel societies” within her country, and that if Germans “don’t wake up quickly, the whole situation will end tragically.”

(Note: Many outlets have reported this story inaccurately, stating that Sommer plans to move to Poland. What she actually said is that she knows Germans who are moving to Poland.)

Yet Sommer, an artist, indigenous-peoples activist, and UN advisor, has also moved — a bit closer to Truth. After founding the organization Working Group Asylum + Human Rights in 2012, she welcomed the huge 2015 influx of Muslim migrants into Germany; she and her 300 volunteers provided German language courses seeking to help the newcomers integrate. As InfoWars reports, “‘At that time I wanted to help everyone and truly believed that all these people were fleeing hell and were in a state of complete distress,’ Sommer told Polish weekly Do Rzeczy.’”

“With the initial hope that ‘their medieval view was going to change with time,’ Sommer soon realized that, ‘Muslim refugees have grown up with values that are totally different[;] they have undergone brainwashing from childhood on and are indoctrinated by Islam and absolutely do not intend to adopt our values,’” InfoWars also informs.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, as the kids might say. Old maxims tell us, “Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man” and “As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” Whether what was instilled is Islamic or socialist, theological or ideological, it’s naïve to think people will shed their deeply ingrained beliefs just because they step on your terra firma.

And how lacking is the integration? “Among my past and present pupils, I can count on one hand cases of those who are, in my opinion, completely and successfully integrated,” explained Sommer in an interview with Polish site EuroIslam (presented in English by Gates of Vienna).

Sommer “also observed how the migrants, ‘regard we infidels with disdain and arrogance,’ after they began to refer to her as ‘the stupid German whore,’ a realization that she says has led other refugee volunteers to quit,” InfoWars relates.

“Sommer now admits that despite her good intentions, she got it completely wrong and that Muslim migration poses an existential threat to the Germany [sic] way of life, a problem that will only be exacerbated by the process of family reunification, where migrants will be able to invite their relatives to stay in Germany.”

Consequently, while Sommer says she’s not giving up her activism, she’s now only helping women refugees and those from persecuted minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis.

Sommer’s story is perhaps an example of how, as the old Dutch saying informs, “We grow too soon old and too late smart.” But she could have been smarter sooner if she’d just listened to one particular orthodox Muslim: Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition and asylee currently living in the United Kingdom. In a 2015 interview (video below) he stated that most of the so-called “Syrian refugees” entering Europe weren’t actually from Syria, most of those who were from Syria weren’t from dangerous areas and didn’t need refuge, that terrorists were among them, and that they were coming to Europe largely to leech off the welfare system. Calling the influx “the soft Islamic conquest of the West,” Zahran warned that the Muslims should be kept out of Europe.

The results of not heeding such warnings are already apparent. Even liberal Newsweek reported in January that migrants in Europe are “linked to soaring violence and crime in Germany.” The most notorious example occurred New Year’s Eve 2015 when 1,200 women (whom we know of) were sexually assaulted by at least 2,000 migrant men in various German cities.

Yet the picture is even worse than statistics indicate. Since the bad press of Muslim crime could throw a monkeywrench into European governments’ multicultural agendas, they often cover it up — that is, when the victims don’t cover it up for them. As Sommer admitted in the EuroIslam (EI) interview, “The sexual molesting of [refugee aid] volunteers happens all the time, but none of us has ever reported such a case to the police because none of us wanted to be seen as an opponent of refugees and cause problems for the center.”

Sexual assault is so bad, in fact, that “anti-rape pants” have been marketed in Germany and have sold out quickly. To get a glimpse into the fear this reflects, watch the 2016 viral video below — which apparently has been censored by the German government and Facebook — in which a 16-year-old German girl desperately pleads for protection against migrant crime. (For English subtitles, click the “CC” icon in the lower right-hand corner.)

Another result of the migrant influx is the development of “no-go zones,” what Sommer calls “Muslim parallel societies”; these are areas in some European countries where authorities are often reluctant to enter and sharia law has to an extent supplanted civil law. Note that while leftist media labeled no-go zones a right-wing myth, the New York Times reported on them in 2007, perhaps before any other major outlet.

As for the moral of Sommer’s story, it’s in part a cautionary tale about no-go zones between the ears. The activist warned repeatedly in her EI interview of taqiyya — religiously sanctioned and encouraged lying in Islam — and says that while Kurds and others fleeing Mideast Muslims warned her of the tactic, she “did not want to listen to them.” This isn’t just a manner of speaking but reveals that she lied to herself. She didn’t say she thought they were wrong but that she didn’t want — want — to listen. This reflects an ideologically constrained mind that refuses to consider unwelcome truths.

The lesson is that the Truth can hurt but also sets us free, and we have an obligation to search for it in all matters — and to shed misbegotten emotional attachments that conflict with it.

Second, while leftists warn of “ethnocentrism,” they nonetheless are guilty of it, projecting their own “values” onto others. Consider that Sommer told EI that she initially was confident the Muslims would integrate because “I placed great trust in our libertarian, equitable European values, and I naively thought that every person must delight in them and take them on.” But why? Are they so obviously true?

Of course, people will resist even Truth when it contradicts cherished lies. But consider that when summing up these “values,” Sommer merely told EI that Germany needs refugees who accept “a secular state where women and men are equal before the law, where we eat pork, where they could even sunbathe naked on the beach. This freedom is very precious and very fragile.” I wonder, could she name even a few actual virtues?

As commentator Bret Stephens put it in 2015, “Having ignored its inheritance, Europe wonders why its house is falling apart.” Moderns believe in “shallow things, shallowly,” he wrote. If our civilization is now about little more than contradictory equality dogma, gorging on tasty meats, and women playing pieces of meat on beaches, then we shouldn’t wonder why we’re slouching toward Mecca; we have nothing for which to fight. Zealous Muslim faith cannot be countered with materialism and hedonism, for man does not live on bread alone.

The issue isn’t that Sommer was ideologically chauvinistic; it’s that she had no good reason to be. Even when (im)migrants are assimilable, there still must be something substantive to assimilate into. Communist activist Willi Munzenberg once said, “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” It now stinks to high heaven as it denies Heaven and authors a cultural Hell. As a result, Western man, today’s migrants mainly come for your money, not your mores.

Sommer laments that soon the Germans will have to “adapt” to Muslim norms. Well, this certainly could be a lesson in virtue, because they’d lose a lot more than shallow equality rhetoric, pork sausages, and nude beaches.

The Death of Europe

There is nothing Geller Report readers have not long known. But what is new is that these warnings are coming from new and and usually silent (on this issue) organs.

THE DEATH OF EUROPE?

By The Catholic Reporter, February 12, 2018:

In 1973, Jean Raspail, a well-traveled and cultured Frenchman, published Le Camp des saints (The Camp of the Saints), a dystopian novel envisioning a Muslim armada invading a culturally incapacitated Europe. Fifty years later, Europe is being invaded by an armada not of warships, but of rickety wooden and plastic boats, operated by human traffickers, bringing tens of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Africa. These victims of war and profound economic hardship are creating social chaos throughout Europe. Social, educational, employment and housing services have become overextended, vicious crimes including rape are on the rise, and incidents of terrorism have increased.

This mass immigration has been encouraged by political elites in every Western nation in the name of human rights. Critics of immigration, even the mildest, find themselves being attacked in the press, by the established political class and by activists as racists and xenophobes. As a consequence, honest debate about immigration has become politically toxic.

More is at stake than the breakdown of social services, law and order, or employment or educational opportunities for these immigrants. The most serious question is whether these immigrants, coming from vastly different societies, are able to integrate into Western culture.

Any answer to this question rests ultimately on the more profound question, “What is Western culture?” Tragically, core Western values based on Judeo-Christian principles, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, rational discourse, religious liberty and scientific progress have been replaced by a culture of guilt in which the West is defined as racist, imperialist and oppressive. This culture of guilt is most pronounced in Germany, still grappling with its history of Nazism and genocide.

Germans are not alone in this culture of guilt, however. In England, students are taught about the ill consequences of empire and imperialism; in France, young children are reminded of the evils of French colonialism; and in Australia, young and old alike are inundated with exhibits, textbooks and politicians who denounce the destruction of aboriginal culture by white settlers. In the United States, the study of history has become the study of black slavery, racial segregation, occupation of indigenous lands, and imperialism in the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War.

As a result, for all the talk by European and American political leaders of the need for social, economic and cultural assimilation of newly arriving immigrants from societies not sharing Western values, the political class throughout Europe, Australia and the United States derides the very culture that they are saying immigrants should assimilate into. The obvious question is: If Western culture is so bad, why expect immigrants to accept it?

Douglas Murray cogently argues in The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017) that Europe is in crisis and dying.

Europe in a State of Terror

The American public has a sense of the crisis in Europe through reports of Islamic jihadist terrorist acts in Belgium, France, Italy, Holland and England. Just in the summer of 2016, attacks throughout Europe were so numerous they were difficult to track. In mid-July 2016, Mahomed Lahuaiej-Bouhlel, a 31-year-old Tunisian man, drove a rented truck into a crowd in Nice, killing 86 people. The following Monday, Mohammed Riyad, a 17-year-old asylum seeker, attacked with an ax and a knife, fellow passengers on a train in Bavaria. The next day Mohamed Boufarkouch stabbed a French mother and her three daughters because of her “immodest” dress. Just a few days later, a young Iranian immigrant in Munich killed nine people in a shooting spree that began at a McDonald’s restaurant.

The bloodshed was not over, though. The day after the Munich attack, a Syrian asylum seeker exploded a bomb outside a wine bar in Ansbach, Bavaria. If terrorist attacks can be weighed beyond just numbers killed, one of the most horrible attacks occurred when shortly after the Munich attack, two 19-year-old killers—Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Petitjean—entered a church in Rouen, France during Mass and took nuns and congregation members hostage while they slit a priest’s throat. Smiling, they watched the priest bleed to death, chanting slogans that ended with “Go Away Satan.”

These attacks in a single month in July 2016 might have indicated to political leaders that multicultural assimilation was not working. Instead, while leaders condemned these atrocities and suggested that Western values were under attack, politicians emphasized that more needed to be done to provide jobs and educational opportunities to young immigrants. Following the Munich train attack, German Green Party official Renate Künast questioned why the police on the train had killed the attacker instead of shooting to injure him. As politicians have dithered since July 2016, heinous terrorist attacks have occurred in Berlin, Paris, London, Stockholm, Manchester and Barcelona, including several relying on vehicles to mow down pedestrians.

One of the problems faced by the political class was that many of the terrorists were raised in Europe. In a secularized Europe, how could anyone kill in the name of God? Take the response by some after the 2015 attack on the editorial offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which left the editor and 11 others dead at the hands of two gunmen who claimed to be “avenging Allah.” The magazine had dared to print cartoons of the Prophet.

The brutal slaying of journalists rightfully shocked the French public. After all, freedom of the press and artistic freedom are central to Western democracy. Still, there were those in the press and the French government who suggested that the editors—secularists and atheists—should have been more circumspect in their insults to a religious minority in France, even though the magazine’s prior satirical depictions of the Pope had drawn little criticism. The critics implied that the editors of Charlie Hebdo shared some of the blame for what happened to them.

Making Excuses for Fanatical Killers

New Nation, an English publication, made exactly this point. The editors asserted the right of the free press, but quickly noted that the French government itself had warned the editors about insulting Muslims by publishing “crude caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.” New Nation quoted the Foreign Minister of France in 2012 as asking, “Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on fire?” The editors urged the public to step forward “bravely to assert that religious hatred is not journalism and the publication of the weekly is harming France’s image.” Otherwise, the editorial admonished, pay the consequences: “Fanatical journalists must be ready to face the fanatics,” they warned. The editors declared themselves for tolerance, then concluded, “But the journalists who have joined this noble profession must also think that everybody cannot be expected to be all tolerance. We firmly believe journalism is not for those who bear and spread hatred especially against rival religions. So let us not talk about free expression. Absolute such freedom will simply invite absolute violence.”

Christians in Western Europe and the United States understood the point about responsible journalism and artistic expression, but suggesting that the editors of Charlie Hebdo somehow got what they deserved is a step too far. The problem that confronted the political class and pundits trying to explain away terrorism was that innocent people were being killed just because they were Westerners. It did not help the multicultural cause that some of these terrorist attacks were perpetrated by nationals and not recent asylum seekers.

Home-Grown Hatred

Following 2017 attacks at the Brussels airport and the Maelbeek metro station, it turned out that three of the attackers were Belgian nationals. Some blamed the attacks on bad housing in the Molenbeek district of Brussels where these nationals had resided. Others suggested that the attacks were the result of a history of Belgian colonialism. Yves Goldstein, chief of staff of the minister-president in Belgium’s capital city, insisted that it was wrong to blame the attacks on Islam, but blamed people like himself for failing to prevent the rising radicalism among Muslim youth. Goldstein noted that friends of his who taught in the predominantly Muslim areas of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek told him that “90 percent of their students” described the terrorists as “heroes.”

Belgian Security Minister Jan Jambon reinforced this perception of Muslim support of terrorists when he reported that “a significant section of the Muslim community danced when the attacks took place.” When he came under attack by members of the parliament for his report, he replied that he had information from several Belgian security sources.

Other surveys showed that many European Muslims viewed the concept of a free press differently than might be expected by multiculturalists. Following the first publication of Mohammed cartoons in 2006, later republished in France, a British poll showed that 79 percent of British Muslims believed that the publishers of the cartoons should be prosecuted. Another 68 percent felt that anyone who insulted Islam in any way should be prosecuted. Almost 20 percent in this same poll said they respected Osama bin Laden. In 2015, following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, 27 percent of British Muslims expressed sympathy for the “motives of the attackers.” Nearly a fourth said they believed violence against people who publish images of Mohammed can be justified.

Migrants and Crime

Europe faces more than a problem of terrorism. The flood of immigrants has increased crime rates, including rapes. Government officials have tried to downplay these problems by not releasing crime reports and keeping them from the press, especially on incidents of rape. Throughout the 2000s it was an open secret that gangs of immigrant youth, specifically those from the Middle East, were attacking women and young boys. These attacks occurred in refugee camps and on the streets of European cities. Even before the floodgates were opened in Germany by Chancellor Angela Merkel, sexual assaults had become a problem.

In 2014, reports of rape by immigrants in Germany began to seep out. Victims included a 20-year-old woman in Munich who was raped by a 30-year-old Somali asylum seeker; a 55-year-old woman in Dresden raped by a 30-year-old Moroccan; a 17-year-old girl in Straubing raped by a 23-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker; a 21-year-old German woman near Stuttgart raped by two Afghanistan asylum seekers; and a 25-year-old woman in Stralsund raped by a 28-year-old Eritrean asylum seeker.

These attacks coincided with rising sexual assaults in refugee centers which were unable to provide separate accommodations for women. Women’s activist groups complained about the increase in rapes and sexual assaults, to little avail. Reports of forced prostitution in the camps also emerged. In many cases rapes and sexual assaults were covered up.

Local police deliberately covered up a rape of a 13-year-old Muslim girl in Detmold. Only an investigative report by a regional paper disclosed the case. The investigation revealed that local police had routinely covered up assaults involving immigrants. It turned out that there were countless other assaults reported in major cities across the country.

The attacks became so prevalent that Bavarian authorities began warning parents to tell their daughters to be careful in how they dress, avoiding revealing tops or blouses, short skirts or tight shorts because they might lead to misunderstandings with newly arrived immigrants. In one Bavarian town, Mering, police discouraged parents from allowing their children to go outside alone. Local women were told not to go to the train station unaccompanied.

The events in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015, however, could not be suppressed for long. Gangs of immigrant men up to 2,000 in number assaulted and robbed approximately 1,200 women in the main square outside the central railway station and cathedral in Cologne. Hushed up at first by authorities, the assault spree turned out not to be an isolated event.

Other German cities, from northern cities such as Hamburg to Stuttgart in the south, experienced attacks on women. In Hamburg, police received complaints from 351 women, including 218 reports of sexual assault, on New Year’s Eve in 2015. The authorities only admitted the extent of the attacks when videos and photographic evidence from these scenes appeared on social media. German authorities, much like their counterparts in the United Kingdom and other Western European countries, did not want to identify the ethnic or national origin of the assailants.

The Response to Migrant Sex Assaults

In response to public outrage over these assaults, government authorities launched programs to educate immigrant males about how to treat women. In Norway, volunteer classes were offered to immigrants on how to treat women. The German government announced in 2016 that it was offering asylum seekers language classes and employment classes, along with trying to teach mostly Muslim immigrants, as the Washington Post put it, “the joy of sex.” The German Federal Center for Health Education created a web- site on sex education targeted at newly arrived immigrants, specifically Syrians, Iraqis and other Muslim young men, to instruct males about Western sexual norms. The sex education website, costing $136,000, provided highly graphic diagrams and images outlining everything from first-time sex to how to perform more advanced sex acts.

Meanwhile, German cities picked up the public campaign for sex education. Munich officials placed cartoons at public pools warning immigrants not to grope women in bikinis. In other Bavarian cities, classes were funded instructing immigrants on how to correctly approach German women. These efforts, however, drew protests from social justice activists who accused the programs of stereotyping immigrants and Muslims.

In 2017, German authorities announced that they were setting up “safe zones” for women to protect them from sexual assaults during the New Year’s Eve celebration. The Berlin New Year’s Eve event spokeswoman in a German national broadcast assured the public that “There will be three or four [German Red Cross] helpers who are specially trained and can look after women who feel harassed or threatened.”

While sex education efforts were being launched, albeit with criticism, to address the problem of sexual assaults, Germany and other Western European countries were experiencing rising crime rates caused by newly arrived immigrants. In Germany, the crime rates proved shocking. A German government report, picked up by the press, showed that in 2014 and 2015, 90 percent of the ten-point increase in violent crime came from refugees.

The Reality of Multiculturalism

In short, German authorities—much like the political class in other Western European nations—decided that the best way to address rising crime rates and sexual assaults was to instruct migrants about the true meaning of multiculturalism and to tell Western women to be more sensitive in how they dress, while establishing specific “rape free” zones at certain times of the year. No consideration was given to stopping the flow of immigrants or making cities entirely “rape free” zones year-round.

The ideology of multiculturalism steadily erodes the foundations of traditional European culture, already weakened by politicians, activists, pundits and academics who decry the history of the West as one of racism, xenophobia, colonialism and imperialism. Average Europeans confronted with the reality of terrorism, rising crime rates and sexual assaults are not buying into the multicultural project. They are saying, “Enough is enough.”

Grudgingly, German politicians are starting to listen. The new coalition government recently reached a tentative agreement to cap the number of refugees at 220,000 per year and strictly limit the number of family members allowed to join refugees in Germany. The negotiations were probably spurred by the shocking December 27, 2017 stabbing murder of a 15-year-old German girl allegedly by her ex-boyfriend, a teenage Afghan migrant, in a drugstore in the sleepy southwestern German town of Kandel.

Americans should not delude themselves that Europe’s disastrous experience with large-scale migration can’t happen in the U.S. Mass immigration from violent, primitive countries is taking its toll on crime victims in the U.S. as well, and as in Europe the political class is extremely reluctant to acknowledge and fix the problem. It will take determined leaders and voters to stem the tide.

RELATED ARTICLE: Refugees cost taxpayers billions to remain in U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

Immigration Anarchists’ Lies Debunked: It’s as Easy as Child’s Play.

So much of what has come to pass for “common knowledge” is actually an example of how the principle of “The Big Lie” can alter the public’s understanding of critical issues. Immigration has proven to be particularly vulnerable to this tactic.

Under that principle, officials intentionally concoct falsehoods and repeat them at every possible opportunity to convince the masses that the lies are the truth.  This principle was adopted by Nazi Germany in order to con the German populace into accepting the unfathomable depravity of the Third Reich.

Because humans think with words, control of language ultimately results in control of thought.  This was the underlying principle of my recent article, Language Wars, The Road to Tyranny is Paved With Language Censorship.

Today the attention span of most Americans can be measured in minutes, if not seconds, further exacerbating the susceptibility of folks to fall victim to language manipulation tactics. The tactics employed by the open-borders/immigration anarchists to further their cause are so easy to disprove that even a child could see through their warped logic.

First off, consider the game of “Musical Chairs,” which most children are familiar with.  In this game, as music plays,’ kids circle a line of chairs that alternate in the way that the chairs are facing.  When the music stops each child scrambles to sit in one of the chairs.  What makes the game challenging is that there is one fewer chair than the number of kids playing.  Consequently, one child is unable to find a chair and is removed from the game along with one chair.  Once again there is one chair fewer than the number of participating children.  The music starts again and the kids circle the remaining chairs until the music stops.  Each time one chair and one child are removed until the contest comes down to two kids and one chair.  Whichever kid manages to sit is declared the winner of the game.

If you wonder what this has to do with immigration, imagine that during the game one of the adults supervising the game opens a door and allows many more children to flood into the room, however, the number of chairs is not increased.  This way the odds of the children already playing the game will succeed in grabbing a seat has just been decreased due to the number of new players introduced into the game.

It should be expected that the children will scream that what has just happened is unfair and of course they would be right.

Now let’s imagine that we are not talking about a childhood game and that the chairs are available jobs and the children are adult workers who are desperate to find a job.  The “doors” that have been flung open are America’s borders and those entering the room (labor pool) are many foreign workers, deleteriously impacting jobs and wages across a wide spectrum of industries and skill levels.

Incredibly, many Americans cannot figure out the parallel between these two situations.  The Democrats who refused to stand for the State of the Union Address when President Trump noted how unemployment levels for American blacks and Latinos were at the lowest point in years were clearly unhappy. Could it be that they have been depending on making Americans more dependent on the “crumbs” that they offer? I use the term “crumbs” because this was the very word used by Nancy Pelosi to describe the thousand-dollar bonuses a number of companies provided to their employees because of the Trump tax cuts.

Next let’s think back to the days of “Hide and Seek” where one child covers his/her eyes and counts to ten and then attempts to find another child who went hiding when the first child closed his eyes.

Today that game is being played by illegal aliens with great success because the number of ICE agents, and the number of INS agents that preceded the creation of ICE, has always been insignificant when compared with the huge number of illegal aliens who have entered the United States without inspection or violating the terms of their lawful admissions.

Sanctuary city policies make it ever more difficult for the overwhelmed ICE agents to track down and apprehend illegal aliens, even when those aliens are engaged in criminal or terror-related activities.

Of course, the mayors of sanctuary cities and governors of sanctuary states hypocritically draw parallels between their actions and the actions of leaders of the Civil Rights movement who put their lives on the line to right the wrongs of slavery, racism, segregation and discrimination.

Although this parallel is an enormous falsehood, it has been repeated in the news media and by a long list of immigration anarchists and consequently many have fallen for this outrageous analogy. Illegal aliens are certainly protected by due process when they are charged with a crime.  But due process is not the same as Civil Rights. The entire point to Civil Rights laws is to guarantee all Americans, particularly American blacks, equal opportunities to be successful in America and be full participants in American society. Elements of this include access to quality in education, job opportunities and housing.

Illegal aliens are not supposed to work, and knowingly providing shelter for illegal aliens can be construed as harboring and shielding, elements of a felony under federal law, Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324.

Where aliens and jobs are concerned, even many categories of nonimmigrant aliens (temporary visitors) including aliens who lawfully enter under the Visa Waiver Program or with tourist visas may not work in the United States and immediately become subject to removal (deportation) if they seek gainful employment.

Prior to WWII the Labor Department was in charge of immigration.  The greatest concern, back then, was to shield American workers from foreign competition.  This is how the middle class was nurtured and grew to become the envy of the world and came to be known as the “American Dream.”

Incredibly when President Trump, in his State of the Union Address proclaimed, “American are dreamers too” the members of the Democratic Party reacted with sheer hostility, not only towards the President, but hostility and contempt for Americans.

Awhile back I wrote an article about the veiled attack on the middle class.  In that article I reported on how on April 30, 2009, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, testified at a hearing advocating the passage of Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation, conducted by Chuck Schumer, then Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee.

Greenspan was “all in” on legalizing illegal aliens, creating a guest worker program for aliens and for hugely increasing the number of H-1B visas as Bill Gates, whom he quoted, recommended.

As for the impact on American workers and American cities where illegal alien workers were concerned, Greenspan said:

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.

That “marginal suppression of wages” for America’s working poor is likely a significant cause of unemployment of Americans and a record levels of homelessness of Americans.

Greenspan’s advocacy for greatly increasing the number of H-1B foreign worker included this justification:

The second bonus would address the increasing concentration of income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.

Greenspan actually had the unmitigated chutzpah to refer to high-tech American workers as the “privileged elite” who are being shielded from foreign competition.  As an economist Greenspan understand “supply and demand” and seeks to greatly increase the supply of compliant and exploitable foreign workers in the labor pool to drive down everyone’s wages.

The Democrats frequently equate providing a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour or $15.00 per hour with “wage equality.”  This is clearly not about wage equality but about establishing a “standard wage” which would eradicate the middle class.

The “reforming” of our immigration laws for Greenspan and his globalist cohorts is an effort to actually re-form our immigration system to speed the destruction of the middle class.

Since that hearing Greenspan has persisted in his calls for re-forming the immigration system.

Hypocrisy is usually a clear indicator of a con job.  Schumer has called for creating a federal law with a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison for those who trespass on critical infrastructure or national landmarks.  Yet Schumer demands that aliens who trespass on America be granted United States citizenship.

A child could see through their lies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Refugees cost taxpayers billions to remain in U.S.

Why the 2020 Census Needs a Citizenship Question

The request set off a firestorm of protest from Democratic lawmakers, liberal activists and left-leaning journalists despite the fact that before the Obama administration removed citizenship: in 2010 it was part of the main Census. They are concerned that asking about citizenship would discourage illegal aliens from participating in the 2020 Census, leading to undercounts in states like California and New York, which have large numbers of illegal residents. This would reduce the number of electoral votes and congressional districts in such states.

By Jay O’ Callaghan

In an action which set off a major uproar from the left, the Justice Department has requested that a single simple citizenship question be added to the full 2020 Census so they can better enforce voting-rights laws and increase confidence in election results.

“In order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2’s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data,” Arthur E. Gary, general counsel at the justice management division of the Justice Department, wrote in a December 12th. letter to Census Bureau Acting Director Ron Jarmin.

Citizenship has long been a part of the census since the 1850s. The Obama administration removed it for the 2010 Census along with most other questions and shifted it to the smaller, in-depth rolling survey known as the American Community Survey (ACS) when it eliminated the old long form. The ACS is filled out by only one in every 38 households every year, compared to the long form which surveyed one in six households every 10 years.

Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, points out the Census Bureau reports that such data isn’t precise enough to use in redistricting, and it’s important to have the citizenship question on the main Census form that will cover all Americans.

The Census Bureau states that it asks the citizenship question in general because: “we ask about place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry to provide statistics about citizens and the foreign-born population. These statistics are essential for agencies and policy makers setting and evaluating immigration policies and laws, understanding how different immigrant groups are assimilated, and monitoring against discrimination. These statistics are also used to tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.”

In a recent Supreme Court case (Evenwel v. Abbott 2016) the legality of districting based on the count of citizens or eligible voters is unsettled after the Supreme Court declined to address it. In the Evenwel case, the plaintiffs sought to require Texas to draw its Senate districts based on citizenship rather than the present method of total population.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, four former census directors, who served under administrations of both parties, supported Texas because “the geographic areas at which such estimates are available carry large error margins because of the small sample sizes.” They concluded the ACS is “an inappropriate source of data to support a constitutional rule requiring states to create districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens.”

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, is among the researchers who supports the request. He believes that “basically more information is always better from a researcher’s point of view…and when you look at things like apportioning and redistricting, which rely on Census data, those things are always a concern.”

The request set off a firestorm of protest from Democratic lawmakers, liberal activists and left-leaning journalists despite the fact that before the Obama administration removed citizenship: in 2010 it was part of the main Census. They are concerned that asking about citizenship would discourage illegal aliens from participating in the 2020 Census, leading to undercounts in states like California and New York, which have large numbers of illegal residents. This would reduce the number of electoral votes and congressional districts in such states.

Arguments against including the citizenship question “are weakened because citizenship was asked on Census forms throughout much of American history” according to Tony Quinn, the editor of the authoritative guide to California districts, the California Target Book.

He points out that “early in our history the Census began asking whether the individual being enumerated was born in the United States. After the Civil War, with the huge boom in European migration, the Census asked whether the person was a citizen eligible to vote. Beginning in 1880, the Census asked the place of birth not only of the enumerated person but of the parents as well.”

Quinn adds that “with the 1890 census the question was asked: are you a naturalized citizen or not. The year of immigration of a foreign-born person as well as the year of naturalization (if naturalized) was asked in the 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940 and 1950 censuses, in other words for the first half of the 20th Century.”

He also supports adding the citizenship question because: “the census asked about citizenship during the great migrations of the 19th and 20th Centuries because the government had a legitimate reason to want to know where people came from. We now have a large immigrant population, some of whom are legal and some of whom are not. Certainly, it is legitimate to want to determine who this population is.”

Questions in the 2020 Census must be decided by April, two years before the Census is conducted, and any Census questions must have the approval of Congress. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other Census officials should endorse the Justice Department request and encourage lawmakers to add it to the 2020 Census.


ABOUT JAY O’CALLAGHAN

Jay O’Callaghan has worked extensively with issues involving the U.S. Census Bureau including serving as a professional staff member for the House Government Reform Census Subcommittee, as a senior legislative analyst for the Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee and for two U.S. House members. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the Conservative-Online-Journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATE ARTICLES:

Is Moscow ‘Deep State’ HQ?

The Emerging Arab Vote in Congressional Districts

Will Trump Save the 2020 Census?

Trump Lets You Vote on Controversial 2020 Census C…

Were Muslim Voters Behind Sanders’ Surprising Upse…

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of California Democrats who have the most to gain by counting illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census: Senator Kamala Harris, Governor Jerry Brown, and Senator Diane Feinstein.

VIDEO: Germans Fight Back Against the Migrant Violence Toward Young Girls and Women!

Rebel Media’s Tommy Robinson reports:

The first in our three-part series in – where we document the resistance coming from ordinary Germans who are fed up with what’s been happening to their country.

We started out in Cottbus, where we heard about the fatal stabbing of a 15 year old girl called Mia in Kandel, by a ‘child’ migrant who was taken in and looked after ‘like a son’ by her parents.

We also heard about a young boy who was stabbed in the face when trying to protect his girlfriend from a Syrian migrant who was groping her as they walked through a local park.

Keep your eyes on Germany, 2018 is the year when German women will lead the way to speak out against the horrific crimes taking place across Europe thanks to undocumented, mass migration.

VIDEO: Leader of Women’s March ‘Tired of White Men’ Like Chuck Schumer ‘Negotiating on the Backs of People of Color’

Linda Sarsour [who is white], the Muslim world’s loudest feminist mouth, and an open anti-Semite, said during a recent rally in Washington, D.C., that she was tired of “white men” like Sen. Chuck Schumer speaking about equality and civil rights on behalf of those of other races.

She made the comments during a rally that was called “A Day of Action Against Trump’s White Supremacy.”


And given Sarsour’s open hostility to Jews, the event was steeped in hypocrisy.

Breitbart has more:

Anti-semite and pro-Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour wore her hat as the co-founder of the anti-Trump Women’s March at a rally in the nation’s capital on Wednesday, calling out President Donald Trump as a white supremacist and warning Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as Congress negotiates immigration reform.

“I’m talking to Chuck Schumer,” Sarsour said. “I’m tired of white men negotiating on the backs of people of color and communities like ours.”

“We are not bargaining chips,” Sarsour said. “This is not a poker game.”

Despite the rally branded, “A Day of Action Against Trump’s White Supremacy,” Sarsour and other speakers expressed support for amnesty for not only the 800,000 illegal aliens protected from deportation under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, but all of the estimated 11 million here illegally.

“This is human lives, and communities and families who deserve to live in these United States of America,” Sarsour said.

Cristina Jimenez, executive director and co-founder of United We Dream, which sponsored the event along with the Women’s March and other left-wing groups, said that amnesty should be for all of the “11 million” illegal aliens living in the United States.

“We are here for them all,” Jimenez said.

Sarsour also made disparaging remarks about Trump and his administration for enforcing federal immigration law, including the enforcement task given to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE.

“So what makes this fight different?” Sarsour said. “You have a fascist in the highest office of this land who is running ICE, which has always been a rogue agency.”

“But now they’re acting like the Gestapo, bullying and picking people up in the middle of the night; dragging people away in front of schools, coming to the church.”

Sarsour admitted that her own family has benefited from coming to the United States as immigrants legally, but called the efforts to control illegal immigration “another horrific moment in this country” and criticized the country for its history.

“I also remember that I live in a country that was founded on the extermination of indigenous people,” Sarsour said.

The rally advertised on the United We Dream website blames Trump for the immigration debacle – even though he gave Congress months to come up with a legislative solution before the expiration of the DACA program, and conceded more to DACA recipients than the much tougher House bill, which only would offer amnesty for DACA recipients.

“From day one, Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda has ripped families apart,” the announcement said. “His latest proposal, crafted by political adviser Stephen Miller, pits immigrant youth against their parents, their family members, and other immigrant community members.”

The other groups sponsoring the rally include Good Jobs Nation, iAmerica Action, Bend the Arc Jewish Action, Center for Popular Democracy, United We Dream, National Domestic Workers Alliance, CASA, Make the Road New York, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Right, and Credo Mobile.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

FAIR: Refugee Resettlement Costs Taxpayers Billions — Welfare Biggest Chunk

I’m happy to see that more national immigration control groups are addressing the costly UN/US Refugee Admissions Program!  Where are you Heritage?

muslim-welfare chart

Graphic (using ORR data) is not FAIR’s or Breitbart’s, but is from a 2015 report by then Senator Sessions Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

John Binder writing at Breitbart tells the latest story here:

Over a five year period, American taxpayers are billed more than $8 billion for the resettlement of thousands of foreign refugees every year, a new study finds.

In research conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), analysts concluded that annual refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers about $1.8 billion a year, and over five years, about $8.8 billion.

FAIR’s research found that of the $1.8 billion annual cost of resettling refugees in the U.S., about $867 million was spent on welfare.

Continue reading here.

And, go here, for FAIR’s report.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

President Trump creates new National Vetting Center for U.S. immigrant wannabes

Headline: 25 reasons to end Somali refugee resettlement now

Oklahoma Republican Senator Lankford to headline Leftwing World Relief press event today in DC

USCRI gets big federal grant to teach senior refugees English

McCain’s DACA Fix Is Likely Dead on Arrival

Rating Politifact Objectivity: Pants on Fire False

The most recent Politifact story “fact-checking” President Trump is a perfect example of why no one should trust this organization — other than liberals looking to buttress their beliefs with partisan hackery. Sorry, it’s just really that bad.

This sort of breakdown can be done on fact-check after fact-check after fact-check. The assessment ranges from overtly biased negativity for Republicans and Trump and positivity for Democrats and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is measurable below.

During the presidential campaign, Politifact rated well-known truth-purveyor Clinton as true or mostly true 51 percent of the time. Trump came in at a grudging 9 percent. Hillary was false or pants-on-fire false 14 percent of the time, while Trump was at whopping 61 percent.

These numbers alone are more than enough to convince conservatives about the veracity of Politifact. But a quick look at the most recent attack on Trump is just a glorious exposition on either purposeful deception or utter stupidity. (As a recovering journalist, my money is on purposeful deception.)

Politifact took this quote from President Trump’s State of the Union address to do their “fact-checking:”

“Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives…Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.”

The first problem they found with it is this:

“Neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents can directly petition for an aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, in-law relative or grandparent to come to the United States.”

Ummmm, right. That’s why it’s called “chain” migration, because it is not direct migration. One link leads to another which leads to another into an ever expanding universe of immigration off of the one — but not directly by the one. This is a great example of a favorite ploy of progressives; create straw men to knock down and look brilliant and so obviously right. But straw men are just that. No one is saying it is direct. It’s a chain.

The next problem comes in the following paragraph:

“Theoretically, one immigrant’s arrival in the United States could lead to the immigration of an aunt or uncle — if the first immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen and petitioned a parent, that parent could eventually become a U.S. citizen and petition his or her siblings.”

I don’t think “theoretically” means what they think it means. If it happens in real life, it is not theory. It is reality. And this indirect immigration happens constantly and is documented, usually being uncovered when an immigrant commits a crime, and they are discovered to be in the country through chain migration several steps removed from the original immigrant.

Aren’t you supposed to be Politifact? Suggestion: Work on using the right words.

Next problem, same as the first:

“…there are restrictions. No one can directly petition for an aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, in-law relative or grandparent, according to USCIS.”

But an immigrant can bring his dad, who can then bring his brother, who can then bring his son and bingo-bango-bongo, you have an uncle and a cousin through chain migration from the original immigrant.

And finally:

“Trump’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.”

Except of course, it’s entirely true — factually. Impressions are not facts. This organization isn’t called Politimpression, it’s called Politifact. According to the facts (not theoreticals and not impressions) Trump’s statement is undeniably true. You can make the argument that it does not include every nuance of the immigration code — the speech was long enough — but it is factually wrong to call it false.

We’ll pass on Snopes, but the exact same problem is at work there. It is led and staffed by publicly known liberals and it does the same type of work as Politifact. In addition to the above  example of how they arrive at a totally true statement being ruled mostly false, they cherry-pick what they fact-check, never going after Hillary Clinton’s endless lies or Barack Obama’s deceptions and errors, but most often fact-checking the non-controversial true things they say.

Liberals and Democrats can rely on Politifact to buttress their worldview. Moderates and conservatives should not waste their time or be sucked in. And if you still get your local paper, tell them to stop running Politifact.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.