montana-protest-against-refugees

Tennessee files suit against federal government over cost to state of refugee program

It’s been a  long time coming, but yesterday, the State of Tennessee filed its Tenth Amendment case against the US Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services over the issue of cost-shifting of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to the states.

Readers, this is big news!

Here is Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart yesterday (I see that Drudge featured the story last night and Fox News has picked it up as well):

The Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Tennessee General Assembly and the State of Tennessee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Monday challenging the federal refugee resettlement program for violating the state’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit places Tennessee at the center of the national debate concerning the operation of the federal refugee resettlement program.

President Trump will be holding a rally in Nashville on Wednesday to garner public support for his agenda. His revised Executive Order 13780 temporarily halting the federal refugee resettlement program and temporarily banning travel from six Middle Eastern countries goes into effect on Thursday.

[….]

The Refugee Act specified that 100 percent of each state’s cost of Medicaid and cash welfare benefits provided to each resettled refugee during their first 36 months in the United State would be reimbursed to each state by the federal government. However, within five years of having created the federal program, Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding and instead, costs of the federal program began shifting to state governments.

Within ten years of passing the Refugee Act, the federal government eliminated all reimbursement of state costs, a huge financial cost to the states that was, in effect, yet another unfunded federal mandate.

[….]

The lawsuit seeks to define Tennessee’s rights in light of the forced expenditure of state funds in support of a federal program from which the state has formally withdrawn.

Continue here and see below the full text of the press release from the Thomas More Law Center.

For all of you in states that have withdrawn from the program***, you must push your governor and legislators to join this case.

If your state has not withdrawn and is willing to sue on states’ rights grounds, this is the direction you should be following: withdraw and then sue when the feds assign a non-profit to run the program!

To further your understanding, here (and below) is the full press release from the Thomas More Law Center, yesterday:

First in the Nation — Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and two State legislators, challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program as a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of State sovereignty.

Defendants in the lawsuit include the U.S Departments of State and Health and Human Services, and their respective Secretaries.

Assisting the Thomas More Law Center, pro bono, is attorney B. Tyler Brooks with the law firm of Millberg Gordon Stewart PLLC located in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, noted, “Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has observed, ‘The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.’ We intend to follow that advice in our lawsuit on behalf of the State of Tennessee and its citizens. We are asking the Court to stop the bleeding out of millions of Tennessee taxpayer dollars each year to fund a federal program from which the State officially withdrew in 2007.”

Thompson added, “Although there are compelling policy reasons to dismantle the existing refugee resettlement program in favor of resettling refugees in Middle East safe- zones as President Trump has suggested, this lawsuit focuses solely on the unconstitutional way the federal program is currently operating in the State of Tennessee.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to inflict harm on refugees, but to preserve the balanced constitutional relationship between the federal government and the States. It seeks a court declaration that the federal government has violated the Tenth Amendment and an order permanently enjoining the federal government from forcing the State of Tennessee to pay money out of its treasury to finance the federal refugee resettlement program.

The Tennessee General Assembly, by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, passed Senate Joint Resolution 467 (“SJR 467”) during the 2016 legislative session, which authorized legal action to stop the federal government from unconstitutionally commandeering State funds to finance the federal refugee resettlement program.

State Senator John Stevens and State Representative Terri Lynn Weaver are the two legislators who joined the lawsuit as individual plaintiffs. Senator Stevens is First Vice-Chair of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Finance, Ways and Means, which is responsible for all measures relating to taxes and oversight of public monies in the State’s treasury. Representative Terri Lynn Weaver is the Chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee which is charged with oversight of the budget relating to transportation.

Senator Stevens stated, “Through federal economic dragooning of our State’s budget, past Presidents and Congresses have quieted my vote and thereby my constituents’ voices. President Trump through executive action has reversed the overreaches of the Obama Administration in numerous ways. I trust President Trump in this regard. However, he needs our help.”

Continued Stevens, “The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to force me as the elected representative of the 24th Senate District to implement federal programs while they sit in Washington insulated from the consequences.”

Representative Weaver, who played an instrumental role in mobilizing legislative support for passage of SJR 467, commented, “Of all the legislation that I have worked on, this by far is the most important. The only way we can get back to our constitutional beginnings and the intent birthed by our Founding Fathers is to go and take it back. We are looking forward to linking arms with the Thomas More Law Center for the long haul to regain sovereignty for our great State.”

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, another strong advocate for the lawsuit, emphasized the point that the lawsuit should not be taken as a criticism of the Trump Administration, “We want to convey to the President that we support his efforts concerning immigration and refugee resettlement and believe this suit for declaratory relief is consistent with what would likely be his position regarding states like Tennessee which have withdrawn from the refugee resettlement program but are forced to continue paying costs associated with it.”

When Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, the explicit intent was to assure full federal reimbursement of the costs for each refugee resettled and participating in benefit programs provided by the states. Eventually, however, federal reimbursements to the states for these benefit programs were reduced and, by 1991, eliminated entirely. The states thereby became responsible for the costs of the programs originally covered by the federal government.

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007. However, instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from the program, the federal government merely bypassed the State and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a private, non-governmental organization to administer the program. Catholic Charities receives revenue based upon the number of refugees it brings into the State.

Currently, Tennessee State revenues that could otherwise be used for State programs to help Tennesseans are, in effect, appropriated by the federal government to support the federal refugee resettlement program. This arrangement displaces Tennessee’s constitutionally mandated funding prerogatives and appropriations process.

The Complaint is here.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://www.thomasmore.org.

NOTE: These are the so-called Wilson-Fish states that have withdrawn from the program over the years.

In addition to these below, several states have withdrawn in the last year and those include: Texas, Kansas, New Jersey and Maine. Florida is considering it right now.

Texas citizen activists must press your governor. He has already shown a willingness to sue the feds, but this is a much stronger case!

To the right of the state (and one county) is the federal NGO running the program in the state (I don’t know who has been assigned in the 4 recent withdrawals mentioned above):

Alabama: USCCB – Catholic Social Services
Alaska: USCCB – Catholic Social Services
Colorado: Colorado Department of Human Services
Idaho: Janus Inc. (formerly Mountain States Group), Idaho Office for Refugees
Kentucky: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Louisville, Kentucky Office for Refugees
Louisiana: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Office for Refugees
Massachusetts: Office for Refugees and Immigrants
Nevada: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada
North Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota
San Diego County, CA: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego
South Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota
Tennessee: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Tennessee Office for Refugees
Vermont: USCRI – Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tennessee became the first state in the nation on Monday to sue the federal government over refugee resettlement

Hawaii teacher says he will not teach illegal immigrant students – Story | WFLD

ismail-elshikh

The Radical Ties of the Imam Behind the Trump Immigration Lawsuit by Jordan Schachtel

Originally published in the Conservative Review, March 10, 2017:

The plaintiff listed in Hawaii’s lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order on immigration is a member of an organization that has several current and former leaders tied to terrorist activity.

Dr. Ismail Elshikh — the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — is suing Trump in reaction to the second version of his immigration moratorium, which was signed on Monday. The order imposed a 90-day hold on foreign nationals from six terror-tied countries from entering the United States.

According to the Muslim Association of Hawaii website, Imam Elshikh is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), a fringe Islamic organization that has a board and current leadership stacked with radical Islamic connections.

Kyle Shideler, a terrorism expert and director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy, tells CR that it’s concerning that Imam Elshikh is a part of NAIF.

“Given NAIF’s history it should come as no surprise that the end goal of this lawsuit is, ultimately, weakening American counter-terrorism or immigration security efforts,” Shideler said.

He added: “That a member of an organization whose leaders have included a convicted war criminal, an individual who defended donating money to a Hamas linked charity, and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism bombing wants to tell the American people who they can admit for immigration should say a lot about why such an executive order is needed in the first place.”

Steven Emerson, the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, also voiced his concerns about Elshikh’s associations. He tells CR:

“NAIF is an extremely radical Islamist group whose leaders and members have defended some of the most violent terrorist groups in the world. Some members have been found to be actually linked to acts of Islamist terrorism. This is a group, some prosecutors have argued, whose incitement for violence could qualify their categorization as a providing material support for terrorism.”

Current NAIF board members include the former leader of an al-Qaeda-connected mosque and a radical preacher. Former leaders include a man convicted of leading an international death squad, and a prominent Islamist preacher who has praised Osama bin Laden.

Current NAIF leadership

Omar Shahin, a current board member of NAIF, is the former president of the Islamic Center of Tucson, a mosque that was once utilized as the “de-facto al-Qaeda headquarters in the United States,” according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. As imam of the mosque, Shahin raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation, which was later shut down for funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. He also held fundraisers for the Global Relief Foundation, which was later deemed by the U.S. Treasury Department to be connected to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

El Shikh received his PhD from the Graduate Theological Foundation Islamic Studies Department, which is headed by Shahin. The program was created in collaboration with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that was started as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Dr. Waleed Meneese, another NAIF board member, has explicitly called for fellow Muslims to kill Jews. “When the Children of Israel returned to cause corruption in the time of our Prophet Muhammad,” Meneese said in a recent sermon. “And they disbelieved him, God destroyed him at his hand. In any case, God Almighty has promised them destruction whenever they cause corruption,” he said of the Jewish people.

Meneese has also called for the killing of apostates from Islam, and for the treating of non-Muslims as second-class citizens.

Former NAIF leadership

Ashrafuzzaman Khan is the former president of NAIF and a current leader at the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In 2013, he was tried in a Bangladesh court as he was accused of drafting a kill list of intellectuals inside the country. He was charged with 11 counts of war crimes as the alleged leader of the Al-Badr death squad. In 2013, he and an accomplice were sentenced in absentia for the abduction and murder of 18 people, including nine university professors, six journalists, and three physicians.

Egyptian cleric Wagdi Ghoneim was the chairman of NAIF at the turn of the century. In 2005, he agreed to deportation to Qatar after U.S. authorities were concerned about his potential connections to terrorist organizations. Ghoneim has called Osama bin Laden a “martyred heroic mujahid” and is now closely tied to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He has been banned from entering several countries due to his radicalism.

LINK: Wagdi Ghoneim Video

Another former NAIF board member is Siraj Wahhaj, who was infamously listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Wahhaj testified in defense of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, who served a life sentence for being the mastermind behind terrorist plots in the United States.

What else?

The North American Imam Federation is perhaps best known as the group that allegedly planned and staged the “flying imams” incident. After a 2006 NAIF conference, several imams connected to the group were booted from a domestic flight after exhibiting bizarre, threatening behavior, terrifying fellow passengers. NAIF and the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) showcased the incident as a prime example of America’s supposed problem with “Islamophobia.”

President Trump’s immigration moratorium, blocking non-citizens from coming into the U.S. from the six terror havens of Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Libya, will go into effect next week, barring a successful legal challenge by Elshikh and Hawaii or other actors.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

A Short History of Islam in Hawaii

DTN: North American Imams Federation 

islam-religion-of-peace

Is there ‘racial bigotry’ among practitioners of the ‘religion of peace’?

Fighting a war on two fronts! Some Muslims believe “we shouldn’t talk about anti-blackness within the community, because we’re under siege by Islamophobes. This is not the right time to air internal laundry.” – Kameelah Rashad, University of Pennsylvania.

Yup, you know it is true!  Or, why would Somali Muslims, for example, want to build their own mosques in a community where  the Arab Muslims already had one?

Kameelah Rashad (right) with Linda Sansour. Photo: Philly.com

Also, according to The Atlantic there is a split between immigrant Muslims (many black) and the long-established (well-off) Arabs in America.  The tension within the ‘community’ burst in to full-flower, we are told, at a December Muslim conference in Toronto.

Rashad says she is fighting a war on two fronts—racism within Muslim ‘community’ and Islamophobia everywhere else.

The article is a bit disjointed (or maybe it is me!).  Or, could that be because the author can’t quite present the politically-incorrect information in a straightforward manner?

[BTW, when you have a few minutes look around at the many historical reports about how light-skinned Arab Muslims enslaved Africans for over a thousand years.]

Here are a few snips of Emma Green’s article at The Atlantic [emphasis is mine]:

Muslim Americans Are United by Trump—and Divided by Race

When weary Muslims gathered in Toronto in December for an annual retreat, marking the end of a tumultuous U.S. election year, they probably didn’t expect the event to turn into a referendum on racial tensions within the American Muslim community. But it did.

[….]

Even though slightly less than one-third of American Muslims are black, according to Pew Research Center, American Muslims are most often represented in the media as Arab or South Asian immigrants. The distinction between the African-American Muslim experience and that of their immigrant co-religionists has long been a source of racial tension in the Muslim community, but since the election, things have gotten both better and worse. While some Muslims seem to be paying more attention to racism because of Donald Trump, others fear that any sign of internal division is dangerous for Muslims in a time of increased hostility.

While the Toronto conference was upsetting, Evans [Ubaydullah Evans, the executive director of the American Learning Institute for Muslims, who is black] said, he doesn’t think it’s representative of the biggest racial problems in the American Muslim community. White racism toward black people is “not the kind of racism that circumscribes my life as an American Muslim,” he told me. “It’s the social racism I experience from people of Arab descent, of Southeast Asian descent. This is the racism no one is talking about.” [Wait!  I thought only white Europeans could be racists! Arabs too?—ed]

[….]

The wave of immigration that shaped today’s American Muslim population began in the 1960s, after Congress lifted previous race-based restrictions on immigration. In many ways, this surge was directly connected to the work of black Muslims and others involved in the civil-rights movement: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 allowed far greater numbers of people from Asia and Africa to emigrate to the U.S. As of 2014, an estimated 61 percent of Muslims were immigrants, according to Pew, and another 17 percent were the children of immigrants. Many of the perceived racial tensions among Muslims come from conflicts between these immigrant communities and non-immigrants, who are often black.

[….]

Omar Suleiman (Dallas Imam): American Muslim population segregated by ethnicity and income.

“Immigrant Muslims had a convenient comfort zone,” said Omar Suleiman, an imam based in Dallas with a large online following. As each new immigrant community established its own mosques and community centers, portions of the Muslim American population became segregated by ethnicity and income.

For non-black Muslims who grew up in the suburbs, attended private schools, and rarely encountered black Muslims in their mosques, it’s easy “to internalize many of the poisonous notions about the black community that … diminish the pain of those communities,” he said.

“I think a lot of African American Muslims see a hypocrisy sometimes with immigrant Muslims,” said Saba Maroof, a Muslim psychiatrist with a South Asian background who lives in Michigan. “We say that Muslims are all equal in the eyes of God, that racism doesn’t exist in Islam.” And yet, cases of overt racism aren’t uncommon, like when South Asian or Arab immigrant parents don’t want their kids to marry black Muslims. “That happened in my family,” she said.

[….]

Some Muslims believe “we shouldn’t talk about anti-blackness within the community, because we’re under siege by Islamophobes. This is not the right time to air internal laundry,” Rashad [Kameelah Rashad, a black Muslim chaplain at the University of Pennsylvania] said. But “if I have to contend with anti-Muslim bigotry outside of the Muslim community, and within my own community, I’m having to push back on anti-black racism, I’m kind of fighting a war on two fronts.”

There is much more, continue reading here.

Melting pot myth exploded!

So, not only do we have a lack of assimilation among the many ethnic and religious groups we are admitting to the U.S., we obviously have it within Islam in America too!

RELATED ARTICLES:

In the past year, 600,000 Afghans have returned home, so why are we bringing more to the U.S.?

Why are we taking any ‘refugees’ from Israel?

court gavel

Judge refuses to halt Trump’s new immigration order

Judge James Robart, who issued a temporary restraining order against the initial ban in February, declined to apply it to the new executive order. Perhaps he was stung by the criticism: in his first restraining order, he falsely claimed that no jihad terror attacks had been committed by migrants from the countries covered in the ban, when in reality there had been many.

Could this be an indication that the hard-Left, out-of-control judiciary is finally having to demonstrate more responsibility? Unlikely, but it’s still a good sign.

“Judge Refuses To Halt Trump’s New Immigration Order,” by Kerry Picket, Daily Caller, March 10, 2017:

A federal district court denied a request to place an emergency restraining order on President Donald Trump’s modified immigration executive order, an attorney representing states opposing the order told Reuters Friday night.

The initial executive order posted by the Trump administration — which restricted travel from seven countries with majority Muslim populations — last January was challenged by lawyers in states such as Washington and Minnesota.

Seattle U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against the initial policy last month.

The new order narrowed the travel restriction down to six countries and would give exception to green card holders among other changes. According to Reuters, Robart did not apply his restraining order to the new immigration order….

RELATED ARTICLE: UK: 5,500 cases of FGM in 2016 alone, not a single prosecution

govt-terrorism-watch_645x400

The Trojan Horse of Terrorism

In a March 7, 2017 story by Dan Bilefsky, headlined “Hungary Approves Detention of Asylum Seekers in Guarded Camps,” the New York Times reported that,

“Europe’s simmering backlash against immigration came into sharp relief on Tuesday when the Hungarian Parliament approved the detention of asylum seekers in guarded and enclosed camps on the country’s southern border, in what human rights advocates called a reckless breach of international law.”

According to the Times,

“Prime Minister Viktor Orban justified the measure on the grounds that it would secure the European Union’s borders from migrants and act as a powerful deterrent against migration, which he called the ‘Trojan horse of terrorism.’ ”

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying,

“We are under siege.  The flood of migration has slowed down but has not stopped.  Laws apply to everyone.  This includes those migrants who want to cross Hungary’s border illegally.  This is the reality, which cannot be overruled by charming human rights nonsense.”

Unfortunately, it is “charming human rights nonsense” that now informs immigration policy on the political left in the United States, just as it has in most Western European nations.  While liberals and Democrats oppose any and all limitations on immigration from majority Muslim countries… in the apparent hope that American Muslims will repay the favor by becoming a reliable Democratic voting bloc… even they express concern over the potential for isolated terror attacks in the near term.  What apparently escapes their attention is the clearly stated long term goal of Muslim migration: the complete domination of Islam over all the nations of the world.

In his first speech before a joint session of Congress on February 28, President Trump paused, gazed directly into the camera, and carefully enunciated words that Barack Obama famously refused to utter. He said,

“Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States… We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.”

However, as appealing and as essential as that resolve might be, by focusing only on the unspeakable atrocities of radical Islamists, we run the risk of overlooking or downplaying what is an even more deadly and more pervasive long term threat: the danger of what Hungarian Prime Minister Orban referred to as the “Trojan horse of terrorism,” the unfettered flow of Muslim migrants and refugees across international frontiers into the Western world.

In his book, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, Dr. Peter Hammond explains something that every Christian, every Jew, and every other non-Muslim on the face of the Earth must understand… which is that Islam does not qualify as a religion in the normally accepted sense of the word.  Instead, as a complete legal, political, economic, social, and military system with a religious component, the West’s dangerous flirtation with multiculturalism can only be described as “charming human rights nonsense.”  And while most non-Muslims worry about the possibility of being murdered in an isolated “lone wolf” terror attack, they all but ignore the long term implications of Muslim expansionism.    

Dr. Hammond explains the process of “stealth jihadism” carried out by muhajirs, or Muslim immigrants.  He tells us that “Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.  When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.”

In his May 8, 2015 treatise, titled, Islam, Interreligious Dialogue, and Evangelization, Andre Villeneuve, Ph.D. of Saint John Vianney Seminary, describes the ecumenical schizophrenia displayed by the Catholic Church in their approach to Islam in just the past two decades.  He quotes Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg Lecture of September 12, 2006.  Benedict quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said,

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

However, Villeneuve goes on to describe a contrary view held by the current prelate, Pope Francis.  He writes,

“After praising the commitment to prayer, faith, devotion, and ethical values of many Muslims, (Pope) Francis encourages Christians to adopt a welcoming attitude towards the increasing number of Muslim immigrants in traditionally Christian countries, while asking for a reciprocal freedom of worship for Christians living in Muslim countries.”

Reciprocal freedom of worship?  It is, at best, a naive pipe-dream.  While a few majority Muslim nations have tolerated Christian congregations in their midst, many of those Christians are now victims of genocide.  To expect that those attitudes will ever change is worse than naïve… it is dangerous and it is suicidal.

Christians are taught from early childhood to heed the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:39.  In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,

“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

As the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, Pope Francis is obliged to instruct his flock to “turn the other cheek.”  However, while that counter-intuitive advice may be valuable to me in a one-on-one relationship with my next door neighbor or a co-worker, just how far does it go?  In other words, how are we to react when all of western civilization hangs in the balance?

On September 3, 2011, Swiss parliamentarian Oskar Freysinger, of the Christian Democratic People’s Party addressed some very important thoughts to a Berlin audience… thoughts that the American people would do well to hear and heed in 2017.  He said, in part, “My dear Berlin friends, I come to you today as a neighbor and as a concerned friend…”

Referring to the rules imposed on non-Muslims living in majority Muslim nations, Freysinger said, “The dhimmi attitude of Europeans sustained a wound which must not heal over if the millennia-old European civilization is to survive, for Europe is more than a plot of land, more than a continent, more than the sum of its countries.  Europe is an idea, a cultural landscape, an intellectual space shaped by history.  Europe is the cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression.

“This is ever more strongly endangered by the possibility that our political elite will bend their necks before (an Islamic) religious dogma that is alien to our intellectual history, our values, and our constitutional state.  This dogma is gnawing away at the pillars of our system of laws, wherever it is allowed some space.  This dogma demands total obedience from its followers.

“They are in no case to integrate into our value system.  That would be like treason and can even be punished with death.  They are expected to conquer our intellectual home, make the Western world subject.  Not with tanks, rockets, or riflemen.  Not through brutal revolution.  No, Islam is in no hurry.  It has an eternity.  A long process of softening up and leisurely occupation of our child-poor society is foreseen.  The Islamic doctrine is expected to gradually creep into everyday life and Fortress Europe will crumble from within.

“And what are we doing?  We are allowing this violent doctrine, unhindered in cultural ghettos, to strain at toppling the nation of laws…  When women are beaten and whole city districts are taken over, we look the other way.  We believe we can soften the power hunger of the holy warriors with welfare money.  We believe we can buy peace! What lunacy!  No one fingers the Prophet’s beard.  Fanatics cannot be bought.  Germany should know that better than any country in the world…”

He concluded by saying, “If we lose this battle there will be no second chance, for Islam does not give back what it has conquered.  So I summon all the humanists of this continent not to keep their heads in the sand and to resist the Islamic dogma’s drive to conquest.  Let us stand together and uncompromisingly insist upon the primacy of our civil law over any religious dogma.  Let us find our way back to our precious intellectual heritage.  Islam is only as strong as we are weak”

It is estimated that, by the end of this century, in the absence of some unforeseen divine intervention, Muslims will exceed 50 percent of the world’s population.  But long before that time, it is reasonable to assume that most of 21st century Western civilization will have become unraveled and our descendants will find themselves facing a squalid 7th century lifestyle. As Prime Minister Orban so aptly describes it, the current level of Muslim immigration into the West can best be described as the “Trojan horse of terrorism.”  Left unfettered, it can have no good end.  As matters now stand, we cannot assume that the Europe we have known and loved for many centuries, and from which our forbears emerged, will continue to exist beyond ten or twenty more years.

While Europe may be the “cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression,” the United States is the laboratory in which those concepts were tested and proven.  That fact, alone, gives Islamists all the justification they need to see us wiped from the face of the Earth.  There is far too much at stake to be gambled away in some “charming human rights” experiment, in a contest we cannot win.  And if we are so unwise as to invite the forces of Islam to coexist with us, on our own soil, then we too, like Europe, will crumble from within.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump reportedly considering Mideast peace conference

Steve Cioccolanti & Discover Ministries

The TRUTH about the Muslim Immigration BAN

This video by Steve Cioccolanti & Discover Ministries explains why Christians have a Biblical role to deal with real world issues, such as media lies and America’s policies toward Islam.

Pastors, priests and rabbis have a duty to expose the truth as does Steve Cioccolanti.

Gold-star father Khizr Khan, father of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed in 2004 in Iraq, takes part in a discussion panel on the Muslim and Refugee ban in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., February 2, 2017.    REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque - RTX2ZDBY

KHAN JOB? Khizr Khan claims his ‘travel privileges are being reviewed’

Khizr Khan first rose to national prominence when he verbally attacked Donald Trump during the Democratic National Convention stating that Trump had sacrificed nothing and questioned whether Trump had ever read the Constitution.  We will discuss the Constitution at the conclusion of my commentary.

Khan is a Harvard educated lawyer whose son Humayun Khan, a captain in the U.S. Army died in Iraq in 2004.  He had graduated from the University of Virginia.

Khizr Khan has accused President Trump of discriminating against Muslims and once again, made headlines when Ramsay Talks, the speakers bureau who purportedly had arranged a speaking engagement in Toronto for Khan, posted a notice that a March 7 speaking event was cancelled blaming a purported notification that his “travel privileges are being reviewed”:

Khizr Khan Event Cancellation:

Late Sunday evening Khizr Khan, an American citizen for over 30 years, was notified that his travel privileges are being reviewed.  As a consequence, Mr. Khan will not be traveling to Toronto on March 7th to speak about tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law.  Very regretfully, Ramsay Talks must cancel its luncheon with Mr. Khan.

Guests will be given full refunds.

Mr. Khan offered his sincere apologies to all those who made plans to attend on March 7th.  He said:  “This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all omg fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad.  I have not been given any reason as to why.  I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.

On March 6, 2017 Politico reported, Khizr Khan claims travel privileges under review, noting in part:

Khan said in a statement that he was confused about why his travel status changed, without explaining in detail the circumstance.

“This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad,” Khan said. “I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.”

It’s not clear exactly what Ramsay Talks meant by “traveling privileges,” and the group did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Khan.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, citing privacy issues, declined to discuss Khan specifically but appeared to dispute the report, telling POLITICO that CBP doesn’t contact travelers in advance of their travel abroad.

“With respect to Global Entry or trusted traveler membership, CBP’s engagement is about the status of membership in the program, not any particular travel itself,” the official said. “Of course, any U.S. citizen with a passport may travel without trusted traveler status. All individuals are subject to inspection departing or upon arrival to the United States.”

On March 7, 2017 the Washington Post reported, Khizr Khan’s claim that the U.S. is restricting his travel may be unraveling.

In rushing to report on this, the media ignored the laws that address the issuance of passports to U.S. citizens and the admission of U.S. citizens seeking to enter the United States.  Apparently

the overwhelming visceral urge to attack the U.S. government under the Trump administration was apparently too great for the journalists to take a breath and do their homework.

American citizens who possess a valid passport or equivalent travel document do not require the permission of the United States government to travel outside the United States.  The only time that any such restriction might be imposed is if a citizen of the United States has been convicted of certain crimes or is being prosecuted for allegedly committing serious crime(s) and a court has required that such a citizen surrenders his/her passport to prevent international flight to evade prosecution.

Federal law established the grounds by which a U.S. citizen would be denied a passport.  Generally convicted felons may be issued a passport but citizens convicted of certain crimes international drug trafficking may be ineligible.  The section of law that relates to such situations is, 22 U.S. Code § 2714 – Denial of passports to certain convicted drug traffickers.

As for United States citizens returning to the United States, two documents are worth considering because they provide verification of a fundamental fact, American citizens may never be barred from reentering the United States under any conditions, whatsoever.

The official website of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provides information about the Immigration Inspection Program and includes the following excerpt:

Individuals seeking entry into the United States are inspected at Ports of Entry (POEs) by CBP officers who determine their admissibility. The inspection process includes all work performed in connection with the entry of aliens and United States citizens into the United States, including preinspection performed by the Immigration Inspectors outside the United States.

“An officer is responsible for determining the nationality and identity of each applicant for admission and for preventing the entry of ineligible aliens, including criminals, terrorists, and drug traffickers, among others. U.S. citizens are automatically admitted upon verification of citizenship; aliens are questioned and their documents are examined to determine admissibility based on the requirements of the U.S. immigration law.”

Next we should consider that Section 12.1 (Inspection of U.S. Citizens) contained in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspector’s Field Manual:

12.1 Inspection of U.S. Citizens.

When you are convinced that an applicant for admission is a citizen of the United States, the examination is terminated. This is not to say that your role as an inspector is always completed at that time. Listing of the subject in a lookout system may dictate further action, such as notifying Customs or another agency of the person’s entry.

It must be emphasized that the grounds of inadmissibility contained in 212(a) of the INA are applicable only to aliens. Consequently, the examination of a person claiming to be a United States citizen is limited to matters required to establish present citizenship. Once you are satisfied the person being examined is a U.S. citizen and any required lookout query has been completed, the examination is over.

The only question the remains is why Kahn would make these claims.  Were there not enough customers willing to pay to hear him speak about “tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law?”

Was he convinced that the sequel to his appearance at the Democratic Convention where he launched an attack on Donald Trump might propel him into a politically prominent role in the Democratic Party?

Was he seeking to create the illusion that the United States has turned into a police state and Americans had lost their freedoms under the month-old Trump administration?

Whatever his motivation, it is clear that Mr. Kahn is hardly eager to promote “tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law.”

The death of Kahn’s son is a tragedy and he must be remembered as a hero who died defending our nation.  But Mr. Kahn needs to understand that by creating a false claim about some contrived review of his “travel privileges” does not honor his son’s memory and certainly does not help to bring all Americans together but is divisive- perhaps intentionally divisive.

It is likely that Khizr Khan and his wife legally immigrated to the United States, to obviously pursue his dreams and apparently prospered as a result.

Mr. Khan is certainly right about the Constitution guarantees of equal protection under the law, but also includes

Article IV, Section 4, to wit:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of terrorists operating in the United States in a series of deadly attacks carried out by radical Islamists who most often entered the United States through ports of entry.

The measures that Donald Trump called for in his campaign and in his subsequent executive orders, including “extreme vetting” have been consistent with the demands of the Constitution and with the findings and recommendations published in The 9/11 Commission Report and the official report “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

A section worth reviewing found in the latter report, Terrorist Entry and Embedding Tactics, 1993 to 2001 begins with the following paragraph:

The relative ease with which the hijackers obtained visas and entered the United States underscores the importance of travel to their terrorist operations. In this section we explore the evolution of terrorist travel tactics and organization. We begin with terrorist plots in the 1990s and conclude with the 9/11 attack.

3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot includes the following:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports. In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

trump healthcare illegals

GOP Healthcare Plan Allows Illegal Aliens to get tax credits

Numbers USA has reviewed the American Healthcare Act bill and found that illegal aliens are eligible for tax credits. Here is what Numbers USA published:

Healthcare reform legislation unveiled by GOP Leaders on Monday night would, at best, leave in place a verification system that allowed up to 500,000 illegal aliens to access taxpayer-funded benefits over the last several years. According to a 2016 Senate report, the government issued $750 million of Obamacare subsidies to individuals whose immigration status couldn’t be verified. The GOP plan would leave in place that failed verification process, or worse, eliminate the verification process altogether.

According to the 2016 Senate report, the Obamacare framework gave benefit of the doubt to illegal aliens when they applied for subsidies, but if the alien failed to file the necessary paperwork, the IRS was supposed to retrieve the funds. A lack of cooperation between Health and Human Services and the IRS, however, prevented the money from being recouped.

But according to multiple Hill contacts, GOP Republicans may not even be able to get the failed verification process, which would leave their entire plan open to illegal aliens. Under the plan, subsidies for health insurance would no longer be awarded, but individuals could receive tax credits for purchasing healthcare on the government exchanges.

For more on this, click here.

As we have said, this bill is out in the open. Now is the time for every citizen to read it and then contact their U.S. Senators and member of Congress and tell them what you think about this bill.

We’ve come a long way to get to this point, we’ve got a long way to go to make sure it gets done right.

RELATED VIDEO: Representative Mike Kelly Discusses Process of Repealing Obamacare w/Charles Payne on Fox Business.

communism3

U.S. Catholic Bishops promise to ‘disrupt’ President Trump

In January 2016 The Vortex reported on Communists infiltrating the Catholic Church. The Church Militant’s Michael Voris reported:

During the early years of Communism in the 1920s and 30s, the evil was being spread worldwide as the Blessed Mother had predicted at Fatima in 1917. Communist parties were being formed in various European countries and in American cities as well. They were already attempting to upset the political and cultural order.

alice_von_hildebrand-255x362

Alice von Hildebrand

But what only a very small number of people knew was that the top dogs of Communism had already released the hounds on the Church. The carefully organized plan was to recruit young men who were loyal Communists and get them placed in seminaries. This was carried out by various agents during the 1920s and 30s.

Fast forward 30 years to the 1960s, and the fruits were beginning to be seen. Learned, dedicated, faithful men and women in the Church were looking around and fretting, not sure from what framework they should understand the demolition of the Faith they were witnessing. At one point, Pope Paul VI even said that it appeared the Church was in auto-demolition.

One of those deeply distressed was a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, the brilliant theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand. He and his wife Alice were sitting down one day with a friend, a woman by the name of Bella Dodd. Bella Dodd had been received back into the Catholic Church by Abp. Fulton Sheen in April of 1952.

Read more.

VIDEO: The Vortex—Trump and Catholics

In the Life Site News article “These US Catholic bishops promise to ‘disrupt’ Trump” John Zmirak reports:

…Cardinal Peter Turkson and twenty-four American Catholic bishops have recently endorsed a political program that is dangerous, unbiblical, un-Catholic and uncharitable. In fact it is soaked in ideological rage, and explicitly aligns itself with the anti-Trump movements to “disrupt” the president’s enforcement of U.S. law. At least one of the bishops present, Robert McElroy of San Diego, has promised that the church he controls will actively help flout U.S. immigration laws.

This program was laid out at the First U.S. Regional Meeting of Popular Movements, which happened two weeks ago, and summed up in a manifesto called “Message from Modesto.” That “Meeting” included not just the cardinal and the bishops, but staff from the Vatican department for the Promotion of Integral Human Development and the Catholic Campaign for Human Development [CCHD].

The CCHD is the organization that radical Saul Alinsky personally helped left-wing Catholics to design, as the exposé A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing documents. The Chicago branch of the CCHD, with the approval of then Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, cut the check that sent the young Barack Obama to his first Saul Alinsky “community organizing” school.

Another group that took part in the “Meeting”  was PICO, the Latin American far-left organization that used George Soros’ money  to spin Pope Francis’ 2015 U.S. visit as a boost to Democrats in the 2016 election.

Read more…

Zmirak lists five proposals made by these 25 Catholic bishops, the first being, “We urge every faith community, including every Catholic parish, to declare themselves a sanctuary for people facing deportation …. All cities, counties and states should adopt policies that get ICE out of our schools, courts and jails, stop handing over people to ICE…”

The Holy Bible says:

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”

These bishops are welcome to their personal views on President Trump and the federal laws dealing with immigration and refugee resettlement. But they are not ordained to deny the word of God.

Please watch this excerpt of the interview with Dr. Alice von Hildebrand:

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Coup Against Trump

Politics and Pope Francis: What is the role of the Catholic Church and the State?

Christians-CROSS

The Truth about Christians Amoung the Refugees

Executive summary

A female interpreter of Eritrean origin, who lives in Germany and of whom neither the Muslim migrants nor the locally hired Muslims know that she is a Christian, revealed what she experienced in refugee shelters in Germany:

  • Adult Muslim migrants threaten and physically attack Christian and Yazidi refugees.
  • Muslim migrant kids do not play with Christian refugee kids, then they explain that they hate them, just like their parents do.
  • Locally hired Muslim interpreters and security men seem integrated on the outside, they grew up in Germany, went to German schools and have jobs, but when they are among themselves, they reveal their true colors by stating that Germany must be Islamized, and that they disdain Germany and its values.
  • In mosques in Germany, pure hate is preached against people of other religions.
  • Muslim migrant women want to out breed Christians, because they want to annihilate them.

German aid organizations and Christian politicians have confirmed her words with their own experience. They also added that Muslim interpreters intentionally mistranslate the words of Christian refugees to make them unable to obtain asylum, cover up Muslim mobbing on Christians, and arbitrarily move Christians to the end of the charity recipients’ list.


Incognito in refugee shelters: Everything Christians live through

What a Christian female interpreter hears in shelters, is terrifying. An article by idea editor-in-chief Daniela Städter.

Wetzlar (kath.net/idea)

Only 14 per cent of refugees who filed for asylum in Germany in 2015 were Christians – over 73 per cent are Muslims. Recently, there have been aggravated reports by Christians about discrimination by Muslims in refugee accommodations. Even some Muslim interpreters and security duty coworkers would put pressure on Christians. A Christian female interpreter observes this, but she is not detected as a Christian. What she hears in the shelters, is terrifying. An article by idea editor-in-chief Daniela Städter.

In September 2016, the call of a long-standing German top female politician reaches the Evangelical News Agency idea (in Wetzlar). She has contact to a female Christian engaged in refugee assistance, who could tell controversial things about the situation in German refugee shelters. Nevertheless, the name of the woman shall not be mentioned. Subsequently, a discussion takes place in Wetzlar among the female politician, an expert in the field of refugee issues, and the 39-year-old Christian female interpreter originating from Eritrea. She speaks Arabic fluently and has already worked in various refugee shelters as an interpreter – mostly only with Muslim colleagues.

The woman acts “undercover” at it. Nobody suspects that she is Christian. The native-born Eritrean fled for Germany in 1991 on her own. She is thankful that she was taken in openly in her new homeland and was supported in many ways. Later she wants to give something back and begins to help in refugee shelters five years ago or so in an honorary capacity. She has been active mainly as an interpreter since the summer of 2016. That she is Christian, she has not mentioned it in the accommodations since the beginning. Because of her knowledge of the Arabic language, she notices quickly: “Christians are getting subjugated, intimidated and harassed by Muslim refugees. That is usual.” Often nobody realizes the mobbing, by which Yazidis and homosexual refugees are affected, too.

 “Germany must be Islamized”

Security duty coworkers and interpreters are, according to her data, almost always Muslims. They make, says the 39-year-old, a very nice impression at the first glance: “Most of them grew up here, often studied, have esteemed occupations, and they behave open-mindedly.” However, that changes as soon as they are “among themselves”: “Then they show their true colors and say sentences like ‘Germany must be Islamized’. They disdain our country and our values.” The young woman is appalled, and for a long time she does not want to take this for real. She still withholds that she is Christian in order to learn more. Among other things, she visits the Quran courses of various mosques: “There, pure hate is preached against people of other religions. The kids get that here, in Germany, taught to them from an early age.” It is similar in the refugee shelters. She notices how Muslim boys refuse to play with Christians. The female interpreter tries to mediate: “You are Muslim, he is Christian. What difference does it make?” The five-year-olds answer her:

“With the Christians, I do not play. My parents hate them, too.” The female interpreter becomes frightened: “They fled from the war to Germany and should be happy after all, that a Christian country takes them in.”

We, Muslims must get more kids than the Christians

She also tries to establish contact with the Muslim women. Many of them, despite their young age, have already had multiple kids. She cautiously wants to enlighten them about contraception methods. “After that, some women told me: We want to multiply. We must get more kids than the Christians. Only this way can we annihilate them.” As she objects and says that it is, after all, the Christians who help them, she bumps into rejection. Helping the Christians is a sin.

The might of the interpreters

The European Mission Community (in Penkun, Vorpommern) has lived through the might of the Muslim interpreters, too. Its chairman, Frank Seidler reports that at the hearings at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, they sometimes falsely rendered the testimonies of Christian refugees within the asylum process. That is why now, a Persian-speaking coworker is accompanying the refugees to the interviews, so that he can directly intervene in an emergency: “Since then it has been running better.” Seidler tells further about an Afghan having converted to Christianity, who was beaten up in his collective accommodations and was injured very severely. After he was helped to press charges, there were immediately countercharges by multiple Muslim refugees. The process is still running, although he counts with cessation, because testimony stands against testimony: “Unfortunately, we have already gone through this lapse often.” But where this leads is that the attackers think that they could allow themselves everything in Germany and would never be held accountable, so says Seidler.

A permanent pressure burdens Christians

The Christian aid organization Open Doors (in Kelkheim at Frankfurt am Main) makes similar observations. It is often hard to prove incidents. “With the incidents, it is not always about violence”, says the coordinator of public relations, Ado Greve, “but rather about forms of discrimination, for example at food distribution, or about threats. A permanent pressure burdens the Christians – especially the converted ones.” When a Christian is being threatened in his mother tongue in the corridor, “We cut through your neck!”, or “We will rape your wife!”, then it triggers great fear. Greve:

“The religious features imprinted by Islam in their homeland are often brought with by the perpetrators. However, to prove that, it is hard in most cases.”

But it should not lead to that the incidents are not taken seriously:

“It is important to give credit to the reports of the affected Christians.”

When Muslims translate falsely

Also from the point of view of the leader of the refugee-related work group within the Central Council of Oriental Christians in Germany, Paulus Kurt (in Munich), false translations by Muslim interpreters are a problem. From the refugees whom he advises, he makes them hand over the filled hearing questionnaires after the interview date at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees in order to verify them together with the Christian asylum seekers. Sometimes the data of religion are false there – from an Aramean Christian, for example, becomes an Arabic Muslim. The flight reasons, too, are rendered partially inaccurately and to the disadvantage of the questioned Christians. If they notice this, they file an objection within the legal deadline of two weeks. Nevertheless, many refugees did not even know the expiration date at all, and thus passed the deadlines.

Christians often have no knowledge of their rights

According to Kurt, asylum seekers also have the right for a retranslation of the questionnaire filled in German to their mother tongue. However, some interpreters did not inform the Christians about that at all. By contrast, the interpreters communicated to the coworkers of the Federal Office that the questioned one has waived the retranslation. “By that, the chance of Christians to get a long-term recognition for asylum here drops.” In the accommodations, too, the language barrier is a problem: “There, a Christian gets beaten by a Muslim, because he is eating pork in the communal kitchen – and the interpreter relays to the leadership afterwards that there was merely a general altercation about the use of the kitchen.”

What nobody realizes

According to the data by two Hessian female refugee helpers of the Central Council of Oriental Christians in Germany, it is also often about forms of discrimination in the accommodations, which go on in the background without being noticed. They name, for example, the issuance of articles of clothing. The maintainer of the accommodations provides a list with refugees who should get clothes. The slip of paper is passed to the interpreters who organize the issuance in the respective languages. At the readout, the list gets changed by them. Whoever has a Christian name, will be called at the end, and must take potluck with the rest, they say: “Nobody realizes that.”

The state assumes false preconditions

From the point of view of auditor Thomas Günster (in Fulda) engaged in refugee-related work, it is about a system error. The state assumes integration in the case of Muslim interpreters, most of them having grown up in Germany, toward the local value system, but that has not happened at all. Günster, who stands in close contact with Hessian refugee helpers and supports them at their work, says: “A sort of independence is assumed here, which is not there at all.” Rethinking must happen here.

There are positive developments in Hessen

Meanwhile, there have been positive developments, too, means Günster, who is also the chairman of the Diocesan Group Fulda of the Association of Catholic Entrepreneurs (BKU). Thus the Hessian Ministry of the Interior strives to protect religious minorities from abuses. In addition, too, the teams in the scope of security duty and interpreters should be staffed in the future with coworkers of different religious affiliations: “Minorities among the refugees must be protected and their complaints taken seriously. We must pay attention that the Christian refugees in Germany do not go to the dogs anymore.”

It looks worse in Bremen

The situation in Bremen is worse. There, the City Senate adopted a new Protection Against Violent Acts concept for refugee facilities at the end of October [2016]. In it, however, they did not go into the situation of Christian refugees. The target group of the Protection Against Violence Acts concept is girls, women, and persons who, due to their sexual or gender identity, are particularly threatened by violence. The alderwoman in the Bremen City Assembly, Sigrid Grönert (CDU) [Christian-Democratic Union, a German political party] basically welcomes the concept indeed, but already pointed out in May that beyond that, Christians also feel mobbed by Muslims over and over again.

By contrast, the Bremen City Senate stated in February that “no abuses” on religious minorities are known. Grönert: “That, unfortunately, does not correspond to reality.” According to their own data for the time frame between January 2015 and June 2016, nine cases of bodily abuses in Bremen were reported to Open Doors.

Christians do not press charges out of fear

None of the affected Syrian Christians has pressed charges – out of fear, that the situation could get worse. That abuses are not known to the authorities, simply does not mean that they do not exist, emphasizes Grönert, who is also the assistant chairman of the Evangelical Workgroup of the CDU in Bremen: “It is a pity that the issue is not being taken up over here at us, while a Federal Province like Hessen has recognized the problems. I wish that the issue were taken seriously by politics across the Federation [i.e. Germany].” She is not alone with this wish. Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, UN special rapporteur for freedom of religion and world view, incumbent till the end of October [2016], demanded at the beginning of November an honest discussion about the hints of abuses against Christian refugees in asylum accommodations.

It would be a big mistake of politics to spread the cloak of silence over it, said Professor Bielefeldt.

migrantsshahada

US Catholic Bishops [who are paid millions to bring Muslims to U.S.] assail Trump Migrant Slowdown

Actually it is over a half billion the US Conference of Catholic Bishops received from U.S. taxpayers since 2008!

(By the way, I just heard Raymond Arroyo on Fox and Friends say that the USCCB gets millions of tax dollars annually from the federal treasury, but I couldn’t find the clip.  Yeh! Finally that information is getting in to the mainstream media!)

Here is the latest from Catholic News Agency (CNA):

Bishop Vasquez

Washington D.C., Mar 6, 2017 / 03:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- With people fleeing humanitarian crises around the world, President Donald Trump’s new executive order halting refugee admissions is wrong, Catholic bishop and aid groups maintain.

Bishop Vasquez chairs the U.S. bishops’ committee on migration. Last time we looked we reported that 97% of the Bishop’s Migration funds money comes from you—the taxpayers!

“We remain deeply troubled by the human consequences of the revised executive order on refugee admissions and the travel ban. While we note the Administration’s efforts to modify the Executive Order in light of various legal concerns, the revised Order still leaves many innocent lives at risk,” Bishop Joe Vasquez of Austin stated March 6. Bishop Vasquez chairs the U.S. bishops’ committee on migration.

“The U.S. Catholic Bishops have long recognized the importance of ensuring public safety and would welcome reasonable and necessary steps to accomplish that goal,” he said.

“However, based on the knowledge that refugees are already subjected to the most vigorous vetting process of anyone who enters the United States, there is no merit to pausing the refugee resettlement program while considering further improvement to that vetting process.”

Here comes the big lie that Trump is reducing the number  of refugees dramatically!  Contractors, like the US Bishops, did just fine on less than 50,000 refugees during 4 of Bush’s years.

But, for only one year did Obama propose the astronomical number of 110,000 (for most of the year he would not be in office!) and that becomes the standard that the ignorant, gullible media goes with!  For the many new readers we get every day, the resettlement contractors, including the USCCB, gets paid by the head to place refugees in your towns. More refugees=more money!

“Resettling only 50,000 refugees a year, down from 110,000, does not reflect the need, our compassion, and our capacity as a nation,” Bishop Vasquez stated. “We have the ability to continue to assist the most vulnerable among us without sacrificing our values as Americans or the safety and security of our nation.”

He goes on to oppose any religious test (like the prioritization of Christians in the first EO) for admission to the US.

Now, here comes a major truth! And, this is why Christians are not prioritized from Muslim countries!

Refugees must first register with the UNHCR to be eligible for resettlement.

Trump should immediately sever our ties with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, save us millions of dollars, and put in place a program where we, the US, chooses our refugees without the UNHCR middle men!

CNA continues……

“The Obama administration policy was to prioritize these groups, but despite this they remain severely underrepresented in U.S. refugee admissions, so it’s clear that a fair outcome is even more important than a stated priority,” he said. [Andrew Walther, vice president of communications and strategic planning at the Knights of Columbus.]

Syriac Patriarch Ignatius Joseph III Younan of Antioch has warned that Christians hoping to be resettled in the U.S. or Canada have never even had the chance.

“I personally heard on several occasions from many of our Christian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan, that their applications for refugee visas, either to the USA or Canada, are without any response, if not refused by the consulates of the USA and Canada,” he stated.

Never mentioned at CNA News is the financial reason the USCCB does not want to slow the flow for even a short period of time—$$$$$!

Here (below) is just one page of the income the USCCB is getting from you (from 2008-2016).  This does not include the millions and millions of tax payer dollars received separately by individual Catholic Charities around the country.

My screenshot from USASpending.gov captures only 7 of 227 transactions.

For those of you interested in the USAID funding be sure to scroll through the pages and see how much of that money the USCCB gets!

By the way, since the Bishops are exempt from filing Form 990’s we can’t get at their salaries.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Nearly a third of FBI domestic terrorism cases involve Muslim refugees

Call the White House to support President Trump’s plan to keep us safe!

Church World Service announced yesterday that it is launching anti-Trump campaign (to raise $$$)

Breitbart: Federally-funded refugee resettlement contractor, HIAS, organized NY rally against Trump

Trump travel ban could help Canada

Rutland, VT mayoral contest focuses on candidates who could best heal rift over refugees

Magic March 3rd was yesterday, refugee flow should now be shutting down

Only Malta and Finland on target to take allocated migrants from Italy and Greece under EU ‘sharing’ scheme

Panic button as refugee contracting agencies begin to downsize as they lose federal $$$

Syrian refugee files federal lawsuit against Trump EO, wants wife and child in America with him

america first project trumpette

VIDEO: 11-Year Old Trumpette Explains why she supports the President

The America First Project interviewed a young Trumpette who is only 11-years old girl speaks truth to power at CPAC 2017.

TrumpEOhands-1250x650

IMMIGRATION: President Trump’s Revised EO is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense

President Trump has signed a revised Executive Order (EO) on immigration and refugee resettlement. Democrats are already calling it a “Muslim ban.” A question that Democrats should ask themselves: What if former President Clinton had banned the 9/11/2001 hijackers from entering the United States, would we be better off today?

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly released the following statement about the EO:

“The Executive Order signed today by President Trump will make America safer, and address long-overdue concerns about the security of our immigration system. We must undertake a rigorous review of our visa and refugee vetting programs to increase our confidence in the entry decisions we make for visitors and immigrants to the United States. We cannot risk the prospect of malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives.

The Executive Order signed today is prospective in nature—applying only to foreign nationals outside of the United States who do not have a valid visa. It is important to note that nothing in this executive order affects current lawful permanent residents or persons with current authorization to enter our country. If you have a current valid visa to travel, we welcome you. But unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake.

“The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the White House to create an executive order that addresses our information concerns while protecting the homeland and our citizens.”

Hans von Spakovsky in his The Daily Signal article “Why Trump’s Revised Executive Order Is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense” writes:

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel from terrorist safe havens is just as constitutional and legal as his original order, despite what some courts such as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said about the original order.

But the revisions he has made, which clarify that the executive order does not apply to any foreigners who already hold visas to enter the U.S., will make it tougher for activist judges to justify any injunction orders they might be inclined to issue against it. Yet there is little doubt that progressive groups will seek such orders.

The executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” confirms what the administration had previously announced, which is that the temporary, 90-day suspension of entry into the U.S. from certain designated countries will not apply to:

  • Lawful permanent residents as well as diplomatic, NATO, and U.N. personnel.
  • Foreign nationals admitted after the effective date of the executive order.
  • Individuals with a visa valid on the date of the executive order.
  • Dual nationals travelling on a passport issued by a non-designated country.
  • Individuals already granted asylum or refugee status before the effective date of the executive order.

This is an important revision because it voids the due process concerns that the 9th Circuit expressed—namely, that individuals who had already received approval to enter or reside in the United States might have that right taken away from them without a review and appeal process.

Read more…

Spakovsky concludes, “This executive order is clearly within the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f), in which Congress clearly delegated to the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. when he believes it would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States’.”

ABOUT HANS VON SPAKOWSKY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: @HvonSpakovsky

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of the Fed Refugee Resettlement Program

Who’s paying for the DACA program? | TheHill

Trump makes key changes to travel ban

Five takeaways from Trump’s new travel ban

Iraq’s lobbyists mobilized after travel ban, documents reveal

Politico: Fight will now focus on 120-day refugee moratorium

No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists

merkel in burka

Germany Rooting Out Migrant Muslim Jihadists — 570 on Watchlist

The clincher to this story is in the last sentence.  570 “dangerous” refugees are being watched.  Surely they could get rid of them before they commit a terrorist act!

I’m guessing that Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel is trying to look tough in the lead-up to German elections this year.

And, how many more are still unknown to them?

Invasion of Europe news….

From Newsline:

angela-merkel-38-what-refugees

Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel.

German police arrested two migrants from Syria and one from Bosnia on Thursday in Dusseldorf. The arrest was for alleged war crimes in war-torn Syria, including the mass murder of three dozen civilians back in 2013.

Federal prosecutors said that 35-year-old Syrian refugee, Abdalfatah H. A., a suspected member of the Al-Qaida linked Al-Nusra Front is accused of 36 counts of war crimes for executing 36 Syrian government employees in 2013.

Another Syrian refugee, 26-year-old Abdulrahman A. A., also a member of the Al-Nusra Front is accused of handling the funds, vehicles and weapons for one of the combat units of the jihadist group.

[….]

On a separate arrest, the southern state of Bavaria said that authorities have arrested a 33-year-old Bosnian, who was suspected of suppling vehicles to the Sunni militia, Janud al-Sham.

German Federal prosecutors have launched about a dozen investigations on war crimes committed in Syria and Iraq, as well as multiple cases of refugees being suspected of membership to jihadist groups.

Germany’s population of Islamic extremists has risen from 100 individuals in 2013, it had swell to 1,600 in a span of four years. The German security and intelligence agency (BfV) said that they are keeping close tabs on about 570 individuals who they consider as ‘dangerous’ and are capable of orchestrating terror attacks.

See our ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive here, and dozens of posts on Germany are here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Somali refugee charged with attempted murder is missing in South Dakota

Senator Tom Cotton’s RAISE Act to bring legal immigration under control, but will it control refugee program?

Why is the United States permanently resettling refugees who say their real wish is to go HOME?

ADL twitter campaign #ThisIsARefugee is an opportunity for fun!

Starving the beast! Another way to set policy at the Department of State

trump-drain-the-swamp

‘Drain the Swamp’ Promise Drives Establishment Panic

I’m consistently asked this question by bewildered Republicans and Trump supporters: Why won’t Democrats give President Trump a chance? He was duly elected and yet the attacks began immediately. Why? There was an election and Trump won. Give him a chance.

It’s a reasonable question. And the answer is the perfect confluence of dynamics propelling this phenomena of immediate and historically intense opposition.

First, we need to understand that the response by Democrats, the media and the reactionary, organized and funded street Left, needs to be seen through the prism of why Trump was elected in the first place.

Trump’s campaign and election is a repudiation in every conceivable way of Obama’s policies, many of Bush’s policies and Congress’ game-playing. Many Americans did mediocre under Bush, and most did poorly under Obama. The reasons for which are a different topic, but they fall under the broadest umbrella of “The way Washington does things.” And the way Washington does things is to put Washington interests first. Not Americans’.

Trump tapped into those frustrations and angers at Washington, and into substantial American anxiety over the country’s direction and slow demise. The anger of Trump supporters was largely not race-based. Not immigrant-based. Obviously not gender-based.

It was Washington-based.

The swamp today

Washington is a well-oiled machine — for Washington interests.

The power structure within Washington — the most important, wealthy and powerful capitol in the world — is this: Politicians, beginning with the President and Congress; political appointees, starting with Cabinet members, then their deputies and so on; lobbyists, who are often former members of Congress and former political appointees (that’s the revolving door Trump is trying to close); and finally, the entrenched bureaucracy that makes a solid living by the tens of thousands, often accomplishing little more than self-perpetuating. The leaks damaging to Trump and appointees is coming from this final group.

The Washington metro area never suffered through the long recession and economic downturn that the rest of the country did. It never does. Because the billions of dollars — trillions, actually — just keep pouring into the Capitol.

This is the swamp that hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters chanted about at his campaign stops across the country.

When Trump was elected, he immediately set about keeping the promises he made over and over on the campaign trail. Draining would commence. That in itself is shocking, as it has long been accepted — by the media and “smart” circles, not so much the rest of America — that Republicans and Democrats alike say a lot of things during a campaign to get elected that we all know — wink, wink — they do not intend to act on.

This is the bait and switch. Clinton was never going to provide a middle class tax cut. Bush was never going to cut entitlements. Obama was never going to block gay marriage. The media knows it and is part of the act.

This Beltway acceptance of lying to the American people in “campaign mode” reflects the elite’s expectation that the masses are stupid enough to not see it during governing mode. That’s also how Washington works. But the people saw it, and found someone they believed would do what he said. The results are in. Trump is setting about the draining.

Rapid response

The establishment of both parties was rocked on their keisters by Trump’s election. His campaign mode is the same as his governing mode in terms of doing what he said he would. His quick actions on promises to start undoing the Washington that does not work for most Americans was like poking a mama grizzly in her den with her cubs.

Reaction was swift, from demonstrations without to leaks from within. The small minority of Republicans publicly opposing Trump gave cover to Democrats to go to unexplored extremes, beyond the normal political oppositions all presidents naturally face from the opposing party.

Because of Trump’s own careless linguistic excesses and thin skin, he provides continual fodder for the masses of the angry Left that was being used by the organized, funded elements of the Left.

Remember, these were people who were sure they were going to get the first woman president and losing to such an upstart apple cart over-turner was enraging. The demonstration organizers and funders are able to take that anger and frustration of the Left and use it to leverage their existing infrastructure of protesting machines. While many people in the demonstrations are sincerely upset, they are being used by the Left establishment.

So this impressive array came together: The Democrat establishment, just a small but cover-providing portion of the Republican establishment, the media establishment that Trump continues to engage head-on like no one else, the entrenched bureaucratic establishment (including the intelligence agencies) and ancillary establishments of lobbyists, experts, etc. They aligned in common cause against the man that most seems to threatened the system that has empowered and enriched them.

Trump is a highly imperfect vehicle for this undertaking, but this same array would have come together against any candidate who truly meant to “drain the swamp.” Trump just makes it a little easier with his public carelessness.

If Trump is allowed to do what he says he wants to do, it becomes the first loosening of the plug at the bottom of the swamp. A lot of political oxes will be gored, power and influence will be lost and cozy D.C. establishments on the Left and Right will be up-ended.

They won’t wait to see how he does because it is not in their best interests to do so, and they seem to have all the components in place to not wait.

Seismic change: Tuesday’s address to Congress

Key phrase being “seem to.”

This is vital, because Trump presented a dramatically different image of himself when he address the Joint Session of Congress Tuesday night — a State of the Union for a newly elected president. In it, Trump laid out a vision for the country that was not sifted through the heavy filter of media bias and negativity.

Trump was presidential, controlled, focused on his vision and agenda, compassionate and patriotic. He hit 80 percent conservative notes, 20 percent populist notes. The reviews even in the media were that Trump not only gave a great speech — because expectations are low with him on giving speeches — but a well above-average speech for any State of the Union or equivalent. It was a real effort at post-partisanship (to which the Democrats in attendance gave the metaphorical middle finger) and a forceful vision of a renewed America.

Even his fiercest enemies, such as Van Jones, said: “He became President of the United States in that moment, period.”

So if Trump not only does exactly what he promised to do in terms of the broadest “drain the swamp” actions, but does it with more of the gravitas expected of the office, then the Washington establishment will have two options: dig in deeper and ratchet up or give up and surrender.

There is no reason to think they will easily surrender their power, influence and wealth.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Moral Clarity: Get the Feds Out of Bathrooms

A New Era: Trump vs. Obama, White House vs. Shadow White House

10 Stunning But Quickly Forgotten Obama Comments

Time for a Legislative Override of Activist Courts

Illegal Immigration Drives Income Inequality

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