I told you just last month that we are admitting 750 Somalis a month to the U.S. right now adding to the well over 100,000 you have been supporting with your tax dollars for decades.
And, here we learn that thousands more are bailing out of Somalia and heading north to Europe. The spring migration has begun!
But, what is the number one reason for the mass migration of Somalis out of THEIR country? It is due to the corrupt government and lack of jobs (not first a fear of al-Shabaab!).
“Some say it’s because of insecurity, but others rationalize their departure due to rampant unemployment,” the head of Somalia’s immigration and naturalization department, Abdullahi Gafow Mohamud, said in an interview.
That’s the case for Ali Hassan Abdi, who graduated from university two years ago and hasn’t found a job. The 25-year-old says endemic graft — Somalia is ranked joint-bottom with North Korea on Berlin-based Transparency International’s global Corruption Perceptions Index of 168 countries — is “the number-one cause of mass migration.”
So tell us again why we need to be moving the population of Somalia to the American heartland?
When looking at Obama’s policies it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that all, and I mean all, of his executive orders and strategies are to undermine the Judeo/Christian principles on which this country is founded. This is also the case when focusing on the ramifications of the Refugee Resettlement Program.
If someone were to apply the least amount of common sense to the “refugee crisis” we are experiencing due to the warring Islamic countries of the Middle East and Africa, it would mirror the Obama Administration’s Refugee Resettlement Program.
The latest casualty on Obama’s Illogical Tour is Rutland, Vermont, home to socialist Bernie Sanders. According to Leo Hohmann of World Net Daily some 100 Syrians were resettled in the small northern town without any public discussion of the matter, just a quick announcement of acceptance by the Rutland Mayor relaying his town’s positive outlook on receiving the immigrants.
Hohmann reports,
“In fact, when residents of Rutland, Vermont, found out about the secretly negotiated deal to seed their community with migrants from a Middle Eastern hotbed of Sunni radicalism, they were livid.
They packed a local library for an “informational” meeting Thursday night. At least 20 of them stood outside with protest signs, demanding that their mayor explain why he negotiated the entire deal with the federal resettlement contractors behind closed doors and outside the purview of public scrutiny.”
Hohmann’s article goes on to quote a local resident, David O’Brien, on his thoughts concerning the lack of input from the local citizens about the resettling of the refugees in his town. O’Brien stated,
“Something like relocating 100 refugees, especially from a very tough part of the world, war-torn Syria, is something you would just logically think you would have a discussion about,”
This is what O’Brien and the rest of the tax-paying American citizens need to understand. Obama doesn’t care what you think about his plan to relocate hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the country, nor does he care about the negative ramifications of such a program to the local townspeople’s way of life. Most importantly, his plan follows no sound judgement for the protection of American’s security or livelihoods.
Several of the nonsensical points of this program are:
Who, in their right mind, would even consider bringing thousands of refugees from a hotbed of Islamic terrorism into small towns and communities and consider it sound judgement? Our top national security officers have testified that it is impossible to vet even the Syrians. According to Michael Cutler, a former border control official with over 40 years of experience, one cannot expect a perfect result from a flawed vetting process. It can’t be done, period.
A refugee is one that would normally seek temporary shelter until dangerous situations have passed in order for that refugee to return to their home country. So, logically it makes more sense to settle the refugee in close proximity to their home country, not spend twelve times the amount of money to relocate the individual with virtually no chance of them buying a ticket back to their country of origin.
Since our country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, it would make sense for us to seek out those authentic refugees that have been singled out due to their religion, the Christians. These Christians in Syria, Iraq, and other warring Islamic countries are afraid to venture into the strictly Islamic environments that characterize the United Nations camps, of which 95% of our refugees are from. So, Obama’s program leaves out the most vulnerable and deserving refugees.
Obama’s Refugee Program brings to America, by the hundreds of thousands, the very Muslims who carry with them the exact ideology of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, al-Nusra, and Boko Haraam. Any Muslim who doesn’t denounce the Sharia should be considered a “sleeper-cell” for Islamic jihad. Undoubtedly bringing them into the heart of our country doesn’t make us safer. It would then make sense to ban any more Muslims from entering our country during this climate of global Islamic terror.
Once the refugee steps foot on our soil they can apply for all Federal, State and Local welfare programs. If a refugee is over 65 they are eligible for Social Security benefits. How is this helping our national debt? In addition, the refugees don’t have a right, nor do they deserve our hard-working tax dollars.
There are some 93 million Americans out of work, and yet this program, has the hearty support of big corporations, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Volunteer Resettlement Agencies (VOLAGS). For example, Tennessee’s Neil MacDonald of the Chamber says this about bringing in immigrants and refugees, “If we want to compete on an international basis, it’s essential we continue our growth in diversity.” See RRW for full story. How about we start giving jobs to skilled Americans who have been tossed out of their careers by foreign workers, which would make sense.
The rape capitol of the West is Sweden. If the Muslim male population in that country is roughly 2% with 77% of the reported rape cases committed by Muslims, it would make sense to take into account that Muslim culture is against womens’ rights, and place a ban or limit on Muslim men entering our country as refugees.
One could continue the list of why the Refugee Program is harmful to America in its present form. Until Americans get up off the couch and decide to actually do something, we will suffer the destruction of many plans enacted by this treasonous president to change America forever.
Go to RestoretheUSA.net, download the petition, and hand carry it to your legislator to demand they defund Obama’s program.
“In light of [the] data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis… Let’s adapt Trump’s plan and put a moratorium on Sunni immigration.”
This policy discussion by Islamic historian Timothy Furnish may seem to run counter to the position of those of us who believe a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration “until we can figure out what the heck is going on” is the proper approach, but it is at the very least a serious attempt to undergird Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban with factual and functional analysis. Serious discussion leads to serious policy, and serious results. Let’s have this discussion.
“An Islamic Historian’s Response to Donald Trump’s Proposed Muslim Immigration Ban”, by Timothy R. Furnish, History News Network, May 13, 2016:
Many if not most on the Left have not only dismissed his idea out-0f-hand, but condemned it as “racist,” while many on the Right support it. Contra the political extremes of both Left and Right, however, I think Trump has a point, if the plan were fine-tuned. Some Muslims should probably be banned (which almost certainly would be legal), but not all; and to differentiate those categories requires honest research and analysis, not emoting and propaganda.
The starting point for this evaluation is whether adherents of the world’s second-largest faith are more prone to violence than those of other religions.
Far too many liberals, and most Muslims of course, vehemently deny any such connection. But facts are stubborn things.
Of the 59 groups currently on the US State Department foreign terrorist list, 41, or 69%, are Muslim. Every single one of the 82 groups on the United Arab Emirates’ terrorist list is Islamic. (Does that make the UAE “racist” one wonders?) There are 104 groups on the database of the University of Chicago Project on Security & Terrorism (CPOST), which tracks terrorism between 1982 and 2015; at least 80 of the groups therein, or 77%, are Muslim. Twenty-one of the top 25 groups whose members killed people in that same time-frame are Muslim. Also, in that 33-year period, suicide attacks by Muslims far outnumber those Christians, by 300:1. Yes, there was exactly one suicide attack by a Christian in the 33 years that CPOST has tracked the data.
The historical and empirical evidence is clear for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear: Islam promotes violence against those not in its club (which, yes, often includes those who claim to be Muslims, as well) far more than any other belief system does against non-adherents.
But as the howls of “Islamophobia” begin to rise, let me add that not all branches of Islam are equally culpable for this global problem.
As I argue at length in my aforementioned book (especially pp. 193-209), it is primarily Sunnism—the largest branch, alas—that promotes a literalist reading and application of the Qur’an and the Hadiths (the alleged sayings and practices of Islam’s founder, Muhammad). This means that canonical Islamic endorsement of beheading, stoning, and violent jihad, inter alia, must apply across space and time; they are not subject to, say, allegorical interpretation or chronological consignment to the 7th century AD.
And such Sunni literalism has sunk deep roots: majorities of Muslims in many countries (according to Pew empirical data) support stoning for adultery and execution for “apostasy” (converting from Islam to another religion). This is why I said on a recent TV special that ISIS is indeed Islamic, and why it is so difficult for other Muslims to actually delegitimize it.
However, wooden and, frankly, brutal Sunni literalism—which holds sway not only in terrorist groups but also in broader movements like Saudi Wahhabism and South Asian Deobandism—it is not the only understanding of Islam.
There are minority sects of Islam which do not take the Qur’an 100% literally and are thereby not yoked to slavish imitation of the texts, with all their problematic repercussions: the Ahmadis of South Asia; the Isma’ilis, the second-largest Shi`a sect; the syncretistic Alawis and Druze of Syria and Lebanon; many Sufi, or Islamic mystical, orders (which are actually not sects so much as, in a sense, charismatic Muslims); and, believe it or not, the Twelvers—the Shi`is of Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and Azerbaijan—who unlike the Sunnis never abandoned ta`wil, or “(allegorical) interpretation” of the Islamic texts.
All of these groups are, to varying degrees, persecuted by Sunnis in most places for their heterodox—if not downright heretical—views, at least from the Sunni perspective.
Note, I am not saying all sects are peaceful and Sunnis are always vicious. What I am saying is that Sunnis and their theology are far more often the problem, because a literal understanding of Qur’an and Hadiths is the only one allowed therein; sects, even Twelver Shi`is, allow for much more leeway in interpretation.
Consider: only two of the groups on the US State Department list adduced earlier are Twelver Shi`i; ditto for the CPOST terrorist list. There are no examples of Ahmadi, Isma’ili or Alawi terrorists (although Alawis, in the guise of the al-Assad regime, do hold on brutally to power—largely in order to stave off the inevitable religicide that would ensue were they to lose to the Syrian Sunni jihadists). Twelver Shi`i Iran is a state sponsor of mainly Sunni terror, but in order to geopolitically hobble its enemies Saudi Arabia and Israel, not out of Twelver theological imperatives. Sufis can and have been violent in the past and today (they fight Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabab in Somalia), but only one Sufi group—Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshbandi, which works with ISIS—is terrorist today.
In light of this data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis.
But the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite.
Between November 2015 and February 2016, just over 600 Syrian refugees were admitted to this country; 93% were Sunni, while just a handful were sectarians. In April of this year another 451 Syrians were brought in, almost all Sunni. (And not being covered in this article is the criminally-low number of Christians being admitted—under 1%.)
Yes, ISIS persecutes other Sunnis, but far less cruelly, and less frequently, than it does Alawis, Druze, Isma’ilis (or, as noted, Christians and members of the Yazidi faith). If the US really wants to help those being brutalized by ISIS, members of those sects should be preferred—not just for the humanitarian reason that they bear the brunt of Sunni fundamentalist ire, but for the utilitarian, pro-American one that members of such sects will almost certainly not engage in terrorism on American soil….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-america-comes-first-e1463399539665.png335640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2016-05-16 07:57:112016-05-16 07:58:01From Proposal to Policy: Fine-Tuning Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban by Ralph Sidway
I’ve been reporting in recent weeks about the new sites being targeted for refugee seeding by the the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program (most recently yesterday it was Rutland, VT***).
Carina Black
It is my educated guess that the federal resettlement contractors are wearing out their welcome in the190 or so places in the US where refugees are already being resettled(and in many cases have been resettled for decades) and that perhaps one of the limiting factors is government-funded housing (not to mention other important things like lack of jobs!) and are thus scouting fresh territory.
Also, remember that Obama has upped the refugee stream to America this year from the 70,000 number of recent years to 85,000 by September 30th.
Starting October 1, Obama says he will be recommending 100,000 for FY2017 (even though he will be out of the White House for most of it).
Digressing for a minute, Congress will have a huge role to play in September when Obama makes his final determination about the number of refugees coming for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and we will be watching to see if the gutless Congress does anything about it!
So back to Reno (and other sites) which are being prepped for the even bigger wave of refugees expected to begin October 1. By the way, I’m wondering if the low-skilled refugees will compete with Nevada’s large Hispanic population for jobs.
The U.S. State Department has greenlighted a Northern Nevada nonprofit to help resettle refugees escaping hotbeds of conflict around the globe beginning this fall.
Carina Black, executive director of the Reno-based Northern Nevada International Center, says their application to become an official resettlement agency was approved in February. They’ve since been laying the groundwork, and building a stakeholders’ network, before those first few families arrive.
“Those stakeholders include people from the health industry, from education, from ESL… people in the faith communitieshave been coming forward and showing a huge interest in helping us,” she says. “So we’re still basically conducting a lot of training…and getting ready for this new endeavor.” [Remember readers that you are a stakeholder too! Maybe since you are paying for all of it, the biggest stakeholder of all!—ed]
Black says initially about two families — approximately 10 people — could arrive by September. For the federal fiscal year running Oct. 2016 through 2017, they’ve asked to resettle at most 75 refugees.
[….]
The full list of countries include: Cuba, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
El Salvador and Guatemala have never been refugee-sending countries, that is, until Obama magically turned the unaccompanied alien minors from Central America into refugees. He was re-writing the Refugee Act of 1980 without Congress and Congress let him get away with it!
The mayor had concerns. It is up to citizens of Reno to speak up NOW if you have similar concerns!
Mayor Hillary Schieve was quoted last November saying she would prefer a “pause” on the program, following the terrorist attacks in Paris, but Black says she’s since had productive meetings with Schieve and other city council members to assuage their concerns.
Recently we told you that sites are getting ready to open in Ithaca, NY, Missoula, MT, and Rutland, VT. I’m betting there are at least 30 new sites in the works where plans are being made in secret to bring the joys of multiculturalism to your neighborhood. The only way you or I will know if your town is next, is if it appears in a local news story like this one. And, you can bet you will not see any of this in the mainstream media or cable news!
You might want to visit ‘Ten things your town needs to know‘ by clicking here.
***The major refugee contractor for both Rutland and Reno is the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (more to come on this!). Stay tuned!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/MuslimSupportIowaCity-e1463307095507.jpg398640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2016-05-15 06:11:432016-05-18 07:34:49Gird your loins Nevada: Ready or not Muslim migrants on the way to Reno
Rep. Don Beyer represents the Virginia district just across the river from Washington, D.C. and has a large number of Muslim constituents. More on the story here.
Nine Jewish organizations have joined a call supporting a bill that would prevent banning entry to the United States on the basis of religion, a step taken after GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S.
“Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants,” said the statement released Tuesday, a day before Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., is due to unveil the legislation.
The groups expressed their support for a bill announced by Virginia congressman Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) Wednesday that would make it illegal for the US to block an immigrant based on his or her religion.
The statement backing Beyer’s bill was organized by Interfaith Alliance, a group directed by Rabbi Jack Moline and include umbrella bodies for the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Jewish Women, J Street, Habonim Dror, Bend the Arc Jewish Action and T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.
Once the Hijra is advanced, and the Muslim population reaches a certain level in the U.S., guess which religion will be persecuted first?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-thumbs-up-city-in-background-e1463223938628.png456640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2016-05-14 07:07:552016-05-14 07:08:17Virginia Congressman and 9 Jewish organizations want to block Trump’s Muslim ban
Thanks to Richard at Blue Ridge Forum you can now see who the Maryland reps are who support the placement of Syrian Muslim refugees in Maryland. See here. So what are the Republicans going to do to come to the governor’s defense?
Even though Governor Larry Hogan can’t (as things stand now) stop the resettlement of refugees to Maryland, a group of Maryland Democrats are pressuring him to publicly welcome them.
The letter was initiated by Jamie Raskin (D) running for Congress using this as one more campaign stunt. But, voters make note that Raskin is advocating for more Muslims to be placed in Maryland.
Jamie Raskin (D)
And this is really stinky timing for the refugee pushers because the lead agency behind the pro-Syrian Muslim refugee lobbying campaign is none other than the International Rescue Committeethat made big news yesterday because it is under investigation for fraud in Turkey where it is supposedly helping Syrian refugees.
If you are a new reader there is something you need to know when reading this story.
Governors do not have the power (yet) to stop the placement of third worlders into their states.
However, they do have the power to withdraw the state from the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program as the governors of Kansas andNew Jersey did in April. Although it causes bureaucratic confusion and brings media attention (both good things!), the gesture is meaningless unless the governor then files a States’ rights lawsuit that is waiting and ready to go at the Thomas More Law Center.
Frankly I don’t see Maryland’s Republican governor with that much gumption to protect the taxpayers of the state. I hope he proves me wrong!
As I mentioned above, be sure you read yesterday’s post on the corruption investigation of the IRC which is one of the primary refugee resettlement contractors operating in Maryland.
So below is a bit of the news yesterday at the Washington Post (emphasis is mine):
Several dozen Maryland state lawmakers, including Democratic House nominee Jamie B. Raskin, have written Gov. Larry Hogan (R), urging him to endorse the settlement of Syrian refugees in the state.
Hogan joined other governors last year in saying he would oppose the entry of refugees unless the federal government could provide specific assurances that they are properly vetted and do not pose a security threat.
State Department officials have said repeatedly that all refugees — including Syrians — undergo rigorous screening before being granted refugee status.
Ruben Chandrasekar
But Hogan spokesman Matt Clark said Wednesday that the governor’s position has not changed. “To my knowledge, the federal government has not provided any additional information on changes . . . in the process,” Clark said.
[….]
The letter was initiated by Raskin, a state senator from Montgomery County and the Democratic nominee to succeed outgoing U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D), and Dels. Brooke E. Lierman (D-Baltimore) and David Moon (D-Montgomery).
[….]
Ruben Chandrasekar, an official of the International Rescue Committee in Baltimore, said the agency has resettled 60 Syrian refugees in Maryland in the past two years and is prepared to place as many as 100 in the coming year.[99% of the Syrian refugees entering the US now are Muslims—ed]
“If President Obama follows through on his promise to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees, we hope to have a very busy summer,” said Chandrasekar, whose organization worked closely with the advocacy groups that spearheaded the letter from lawmakers to Hogan.
Ruben Chandrasekar runs the Maryland office of the IRC and just yesterday it was revealed that his organization was being investigated for corruption involving Syrian refugees in Turkey.
Yeh, I will bet the IRC worked closely. They are paid by the head to resettle refugees into your towns and cities and it is in their financial best interests to keep the spigot open.
Most refugees in Maryland go to Baltimore or Silver Spring, but hundreds of others are scattered around the state. Most recently a resettlement contractor was making inquiries in Hagerstown again.
If any reader finds a copy of Raskin’s letter, send it my way! We do need to publish the names of all who signed it.
And, don’t hold your breath that the Washington Post, which is happy to pimp for Raskin, will report on the corruption scandal surrounding the IRC! The alternative media is on the story however, hereLeo Hohmann at World Net Dailydigs deeper.
Hungarian Prime Minister,Viktor Orban, revealed his thorough grasp of the mass migration of Europe back in September of 2015 when hundreds of thousands of immigrants were pouring into Europe. He stated then,
“Let us not forget, however, that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.”
His speech from just a month ago however, deserves widespread attention as it rises to the level of Churchill-like content and stark reality at a time in which most world leaders seem to be governing from an emotional level and do not tolerate truth spoken above a whisper.
More truth was spoken from the mouth of the prime minister in the second half of his speech, than Obama has spoken in his tenure as president.
Consider if our circumstances do not drastically change, how soon we too will be in the same predicament. Context to follow or video with subtitles.
FULL TEXT
“Ladies and Gentlemen,
Europe is not free. Because freedom begins with speaking the truth. Today in Europe it is forbidden to speak the truth. Even if it is made of silk, a muzzle is a muzzle. It is forbidden to say that those arriving are not refugees, but that Europe is threatened by migration. It is forbidden to say that tens of millions are ready to set out in our direction. It is forbidden to say that immigration brings crime and terror to our countries. It is forbidden to point out that the masses arriving from other civilizations endanger our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to point out that those who arrived earlier have have already built up their own new, separate world for themselves, with its own laws and ideals, which is forcing apart the thousand-year-old structure of Europe. It is forbidden to point out that this is not an accidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a preplanned and orchestrated operation; a mass of people directed towards us. It is forbidden to say that in Brussels they are concocting schemes to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them here among us. It is forbidden to point out that the purpose of settling people here is to reshape the religious and cultural landscape of Europe, and to reengineer its ethnic foundations. — thereby eliminating the last barrier to internationalism: the nation-states. It is forbidden to say that Brussels is now stealthily devouring more and more slices of our national sovereignty, and that in Brussels many are now making a plan for a United States of Europe — for which no one has ever given authorisation.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Today’s enemies of freedom are cut from a different cloth than the royal and imperial rulers of old, or those who ran the Soviet system; they use a different set of tools to force us into submission. Today they do not imprison us, they do not transport us to concentration camps, and they do not send in tanks to occupy countries loyal to freedom. Today the international media’s artillery bombardments, denunciations, threats and blackmail are enough — or rather, have been enough so far. The peoples of Europe are slowly awakening, they are regrouping, and will soon regain ground. Europe’s beams that rest on the suppression of truth are creaking and cracking. The peoples of Europe may have finally understood that their future is at stake: Now not only are their prosperity, cosy lives, jobs at stake, but our very security and the peaceful order of our lives are menaced as well. At last, the peoples of Europe, who have been slumbering in abundance and prosperity, have understood that the principles of life that Europe has been built on are in mortal danger. Europe is the community of Christian, free, and independent nations; equality of men and women; fair competition and solidarity; pride and humility; justice and mercy.
This time the danger is not attacking us the way wars and natural disasters do, suddenly pulling the rug from under our feet. Mass migration is a slow stream of water persistently eroding the shores. It is masquerading as a humanitarian cause, but its true nature is the occupation of territory. And what is gaining territory for them is losing territory for us. Flocks of obsessed human rights defenders feel the overwhelming urge to reprimand us and to make allegations against us. Allegedly we are hostile xenophobes, but the truth is that the history of our nation is also one of inclusion. and the history of intertwining of cultures. Those who have sought to come here as new family members, as allies, or as displaced persons fearing for their lives have been let in to make a new home for themselves. But those who have come here with the intention of changing our country, shaping our nation in their own image, those who have come with violence and against our will, — have always been met with resistance.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
At first, they talk about only a few hundred, a thousand or two thousand relocated people. But not a single responsible European leader would dare to swear under oath that this couple of thousand will not eventually increase to tens or hundreds of thousands. If we want to halt this mass migration, first we must curb Brussels. The main danger to Europe’s future does not come from those who want to come here, but from Brussels’ fanatical internationalism. We should not allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We shall not allow it to force upon us the bitter fruit of its cosmopolitan immigration policy. We shall not import to Hungary crime, terrorism, homophobia and synagogue-burning anti-Semitism. There shall be no urban districts beyond the reach of the law, there shall be no mass disorder, No immigrant riots here, and there shall be no gangs hunting down our women and daughters. We shall not allow others to tell us whom we can let into our home and country, whom we will live alongside, and with whom we will share our country. We know how these things go. First we allow them to tell us whom we must take in, then they force us to serve foreigners in our own country. In the end we find ourselves being told to pack up and leave our own land. Therefore we reject the forced resettlement scheme, and we shall tolerate neither blackmail, nor threats.
The time has come to ring the warning bell. The time has come for opposition and resistance. The time has come to gather allies to us. The time has come to raise the flag of proud nations. The time has come to prevent the destruction of Europe, and to save the future of Europe. To this end, regardless of party affiliation, we call on every citizen of Hungary to unite, and we call on every European nation to unite. The leaders and citizens of Europe must no longer live in two separate worlds. We must restore the unity of Europe. We the peoples of Europe cannot be free individually if we are not free together. If we unite our forces, we shall succeed; if we pull in different directions, we shall fail. Together we are strength, disunited we are weakness. Either together, or not at all — today this is the law.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In 1848 it was written in the book of fate that nothing could be done against the Habsburg Empire. If we had then resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the German sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. In 1956 it was written in the book of fate that we were to remain an occupied and sovietised country, until patriotism was extinguished in the very last Hungarian. If then we had resigned ourselves to that outcome, our fate would have been sealed, and the Soviet sea would have swallowed up the Hungarians. Today it is written in the book of fate that hidden, faceless world powers will eliminate everything that is unique, autonomous, age-old and national. They will blend cultures, religions and populations, until our many-faceted and proud Europe will finally become bloodless and docile. And if we resign ourselves to this outcome, our fate will be sealed, and we will be swallowed up in the enormous belly of the United States of Europe. The task which awaits the Hungarian people, the nations of Central Europe and the other European nations which have not yet lost all common sense is to defeat, rewrite and transform the fate intended for us. We Hungarians and Poles know how to do this. We have been taught that one can only look danger in the face if one is brave enough. We must therefore drag the ancient virtue of courage out from under the silt of oblivion. First of all we must put steel in our spines, and we must answer clearly, with a voice loud enough to be heard far and wide, the foremost, the single most important question determining our fate: The question upon which the future of Europe stands or falls is this: “Shall we be slaves or men set free — That is the question, answer me!”
Go for it Hungary, go for it Hungarians!”
Please go to: RestoretheUSA.net to download a petition to be hand carried to your Congressman urging them to defund the Refugee Resettlement Program, until proven safe for all Americans.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Viktor-Orban-e1463215530892.jpg355640Suzanne Shattuckhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSuzanne Shattuck2016-05-14 04:47:122016-05-14 04:47:42VIDEO: Hungary’s Prime Minister Delivers Historical Speech To Stop Migration
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In an interview on Fox News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump floated the idea of creating a commission to conduct a top to bottom review of current immigration policy. After eight years in which U.S. immigration policy has been dictated by a small group of ethnic advocates and powerful business interests, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) welcomes the formation of a commission that considers the interests and ideas of the primary stakeholders in U.S. immigration policy: the American people.
“The public interest has been glaringly absent from the debate about immigration reform for far too long,” notedDan Stein, president of FAIR. “Under the Obama administration the interests of the American people in immigration policy were not just ignored; they were actively and aggressively undermined. If and when a commission is assembled, FAIR suggests participants include a broad spectrum of law enforcement officials including elected sheriffs, ICE and Border Patrol personnel and the organizations that represent them, Americans displaced by foreign guest workers and groups that advocate on their behalf. Lastly, a commission must include immigration reform groups like FAIR that lend decades of expertise advocating on behalf of the American people.”
FAIR believes that the starting point for any effort designed to reform our nation’s immigration policies must be to define a public interest objective for immigration in the 21st century. “For the past 50 years we have not defined what national interests we seek to advance through immigration. It is the only public policy that lacks a clear goal, which is why every attempt to reform immigration policy has failed. Until we define what our goals are, reform efforts will continue to be divisive exercises in futility,” said Stein.
FAIR also cautions that creating a commission to come up with policy objectives and other recommendations should not delay the next administration from rolling back the countless executive actions taken by the Obama administration to circumvent statutory limits on immigration, grant quasi-legal status to illegal aliens, and hamstring immigration law enforcement. There are countless things the next administration can do immediately to restore integrity and credibility to an immigration enforcement system that has been decimated by an administration that has put its political agenda ahead of its responsibilities to the American people and the Constitution.
ABOUT THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM
FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of concerned individuals who believe that our immigration laws must be reformed to better serve the needs of current and future generations.
With a support base that includes nearly 50 private foundations and over 250,000 diverse members and activists, FAIR is free of party loyalties and special interest connections.
For more than 35 years, FAIR has been leading the call for immigration reform by offering and advocating solutions that help reduce the harmful impact of uncontrolled immigration on national security, jobs, education, health care, and our environment.
From 1820 to 2013, 79 million people obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The interactive map below visualizes all of them based on their prior country of residence. The brightness of a country corresponds to its total migration to the U.S. at the given time.
Use the controls at the bottom to stop / resume the animation or to move back and forth in time.
Two Centuries of U.S. Immigration (1 dot = 10,000 people)
Through time, the immigration sources trace a clear path through the world. Starting in Western Europe with Ireland, Germany, and the U.K., the source moves east to Italy, Russia, and Hungary before shifting to the Americas and finally to Asia. The same trend is clear looking at the history of New York City’s foreign born population.
Here are the largest immigration sources charted over time, showing the progression.
While it may seem that immigration over the last few decades has been higher than ever before, the picture looks very different when viewed relative to the size of the U.S. population.
Here is the same chart, with the immigration shown as a percentage of the U.S. population.
Immigration data: Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics (download: full report, data in Excel format). The data used for the map is “persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status,” which does not include illegal immigration or, as pointed out by@artsyTrish, people brought to the U.S. as slaves (“forced immigration”).
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/migration_animated_map_rotator_719x450-e1462980468261.png334640Federation for American Immigration Reformhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFederation for American Immigration Reform2016-05-11 11:28:092016-05-12 05:38:06Here’s Everyone Who’s Legally Immigrated to the U.S. Since 1820
The U.S. border invasion by so-called ‘Unaccompanied alien children’ is on and is predicted to be as big as the wave that washed over Texas and Arizona in 2014.
However, the news is not making the front page yet, and I predict every effort is being made to hide the frightening numbers as revealing them will only add fuel to the fire of Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign. (And, it is the left-leaning media’s job to keep Trump out of the White House.)
Talk about bad timing. In an election year rife with anti-immigrant sentiment, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol statistics show that apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America have spiked to levels near those in the first six months of fiscal year 2014, when the issue became a political football and a source of hysteria for some Americans.
According to a recent report by the Pew Research Center, CBP apprehended 27,754 unaccompanied minors on the U.S.-Mexico border during the fist six months of the 2016 fiscal year, which began this past October 1. That’s close to the mark reached for the first six months of fiscal year 2014 (28,579) and 78 percent higher than apprehensions during the first six months of fiscal year 2015.
Continue reading, then toward the end we are told the ‘children’ are refugees!
These ‘children’ are illegal aliens NOT REFUGEES!
The reporter quotes extensively from Wendy Young described here:
Wendy Young, president of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Kids in Need of Defense (KiND), an organization co-founded by actress Angelina Jolie, which works to pair volunteer attorneys with children seeking asylum in this country.
She calls them refugees and worries there will be a backlash against the children! No Ms. Young the backlash will be a political one against you and others in the Open Borders movement who work day and night to hoodwink Americans.
“We are quite concerned that there will be a huge backlash against these kids,” Young says, “and that we’re going to forget that they’re refugees and we’re going to forget that they are children and adopt even harsher law-enforcement policies to push them back.”
Young, like all the other advocates for Open Borders is attempting to change the definition of ‘REFUGEE.’ These ‘children’ looking for a better life and jobs in America are NOT REFUGEES no matter how many times people like Angelina Jolie and Wendy Young say they are. A legitimate asylum claim can only be made if the alien proves that he (mostly teenage boys in this case!) or she would be persecuted for their race, religion, nationality or political persuasion.
Escaping crime and poverty do not change an illegal alien into a legitimate refugee!
And, by the way, a legitimate asylum seeker is required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they come to. For the Central American teenagers that country would be Mexico! Just like their counterparts in Europe, these illegal alien migrants are ‘asylum shopping!”
See our previous posts on this issue. Stories are archived under the subject heading ‘unaccompanied minors.‘
Care and legal fees for the ‘children’ is expected to cost you, the American taxpayer, approximately $1.2 billion in FY 2017, here.
A rarely talked about immigration problem is that of people who come legally yet don’t leave when their visas expire. How many are here in the country? No one can be sure but it is in the millions. Not only does the government not know how many overstays there are but what countries they even come from or whether the problem is getting worse.
It might be important to point out all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists had visas and 5 were expired. Since 9/11/2001 we have convicted 36 other terrorists who were here on expired visas. Out of all the millions of expired visa holders currently in the country any idea how many are terrorists?
It is assumed the majority of the people who came legally but did not leave when their visas expired came for employment. With no mandatory E-Verify system in place to identify ineligible people to work American jobs are taken by foreigners.
With no knowledge or control whether people were leaving when their visas were up after 9/11 Congress in 1996 authorized the establishment of an entry/exit system to be installed by September 1998. It only took opposition from the tourist industry to stop the legislation.
Congress in 2002 decided to try again to gain control of visitors coming and going so they mandated the implementation of a computerized matching entry/exit system to be implemented by 2005. You got it; in 2016, 11 years later, the system is still incomplete. Implementation is a necessity for our safety.
If Candidate Trump wins he can build a wall as high as he wants and man it with as many people as he cares to but it will have no effect on the visa overstay problem which numbers in the millions of illegal aliens.
For some reason Congress cannot fulfill a promise it made 30 years ago to President Reagan which was to set up a mandatory electronic system to verify job applicants were legally eligible to work. The Civilian Workforce Act by Lamar Smith, introduced years ago, is the latest attempt by Congress to enact E-Verify. The government tracking system gives the bill an 11% chance of passage even though it is flawed allowing illegal alien employers to keep current illegal workers without being verified.
If we want to protect American workers mandatory E-Verify is a necessity. Not only will it protect American workers but it will remove the job magnet for legal visa holders and illegal aliens to come. Think it will ever happen?
Personally, I feel like the frog in the pot being slowly cooked.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/expired-visa.jpg365640George R. Fullerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeorge R. Fuller2016-05-09 15:31:062016-05-09 15:31:56It takes more than just a wall to stop this!
I love how this is written. The Reuters reporter says only 40% of Dems have the same fear. Holy cow, that is a lot of people! Consider also that 74% of plain vanilla Republicans also worry about the resettlement of Middle Eastern refugees into their towns.
I would have guessed the Dems would be a far lower percentage than 40% (so does that mean there might be inroads into the Democratic electorate for Trump?).
Supporters of Donald Trump, the presumptive U.S. Republican presidential nominee, see refugees arriving from Iraq and Syria as one of the greatest threats to the United States, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
Eighty-five percent of respondents who said they supported Trump saw the refugees fleeing the Islamic State militant group as a threat, compared with 74 percent of Republicans overall, said the study.
[….]
Only 40 percent of Democrats viewed the refugees from the region as a major threat.
The Dems must be told over and over again that Hillary will continue the Obama push for more and more Syrian and Iraqi refugees to colonize America!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-american-eagle-bring-it-on-graphic-e1462811830531.png338640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2016-05-09 12:38:462016-05-09 12:42:4485% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats believe Middle East refugees pose a major threat to U.S.
We haven’t mentioned Lewiston much recently (no Somali kids have burned down apartment buildings there in the last few years).
This is your usual fluffy story about coming to America and I’m just posting it to tell you about the school system challenges your town will face if it “welcomes” refugees this year.
Besides the expense to the school system, this family obviously entered the US illegally and are in Maine where the welfare is good for so-called ‘asylum seekers.’ They are hoping to persuade an immigration judge that they are legitimate refugees and they have been told to go to Maine to wait out the legal process.
BTW, the article tells us Dad had a job selling cellphones and computers throughout Europe, so why didn’t he simply take the kids on one of his trips to Europe and ask for asylum there? There must be much more to his ‘story.’
LEWISTON — Joao Rodrigues and his children moved to Maine this past winter from Africa.
His children are among the city’s 1,374 students in the English Language Learner program. One out of every four Lewiston students is in the ELL program; most are Somali children, but ELL students speak a total of 34 languages.
[….]
Speaking Portuguese and communicating through an interpreter, he shared how he and his children fled their native Angola, a country of unrest and violence. They escaped to the Democratic Republic of the Congo before making their way to the United States. [“making their way” is code for arriving through questionable means—ed]
They arrived in New York in January with nothing. A pastor there recommended he take his family to Maine, where there are African communities and where he could get help.
See our very large archive on the Somali capital of New England—Lewiston—here.
And, click here, for much more on Maine the welfare magnet where the governor was trying to slow the giveaways to non-citizens, but not sure he ever succeeded.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/lewiston-me.jpg365640Ann Corcoranhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAnn Corcoran2016-05-09 09:15:382016-05-09 12:33:08Small town school district has students speaking 34 different languages!
With Trump and Clinton the de facto nominees, it is time for voters to begin weighing the national security policies of each candidate.
Donald Trump is the all-but-declared Republican presidential nominee and Hillary Clinton on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination. It is time for voters to begin weighing the national security consequences of each candidate’s potential administration.
You can read our full profiles of the candidates’ positions related to Islamist extremism by clicking here for Donald Trump and here for Hillary Clinton. Below is a summary of six policy areas where they differ:
Defining the Threat
Trump defines the enemy as “radical Islam.” Clinton defines it variably as “jihadism,” “radical Jihadism” “Islamists who are jihadists.”
Defeating the Ideology
Trump said in his foreign policy speech that “containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.” His policy proposals include a vague commitment to use the U.S. military more aggressively, deterring terrorists by killing their families, closing down the most radical mosques and banning Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the homeland is secure and an effective vetting process is established.
Trump is adamantly opposed to democracy-promotion and overthrowing regimes; instead, he favors alliances with authoritarian rulers who cooperate on counter-terrorism. He says, “our goal must be to defeat terrorists and promote stability, not radical change.”
He criticizes Clinton for supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Bashar Assad in Syria. However, a reputable senior foreign policy adviser to Trump, Dr. Walid Phares, is an expert on combating the Islamist ideology and believes in promoting human rights and civil society.
Clinton’s national security platform calls for “defeating ISIS and global terrorism and the ideologies that drive it.” Her strategy emphasizes civil society and a foreign policy that promotes freedom, women’s rights, free markets, democracy and human rights, all if which she believes are necessary in order to “empower moderates and marginalize extremists.”
Clinton says the U.S. needs an “overarching strategy” to defeat the ideology like the U.S. used to win the Cold War. Clinton wants the State Department to better “tell our story” overseas by confronting anti-American propaganda via public engagement.
Clinton’s speech on foreign policy and ISIS also includes confronting state sponsors of extremism like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and identifying “the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools, where recruitment happens in clusters, like the neighborhood in Brussels where the Paris attacks were planned.”
ISIS, Iraq and Syria
Trump says he will appoint effective generals who will quickly crush the Islamic State. He believes the U.S. has “no choice” but to send 20-30,000 troops to fight the Islamic State. He would also attack the families of Islamic State members, bomb oil sites held by the Islamic State and then seize them for U.S. companies to rebuild and own.
He would not support Syrian rebels against the Iran-backed Assad regime; Trump supported Russia’s military intervention in Syria to save the dictatorship. Trump believes he can be a partner with Russian President Putin. He says he would establish safe-zones in Syria to stop the flow of refugees, but neighboring Arab countries like Saudi Arabia would have to pay for it.
Clinton’s speech on ISIS emphasized her opposition to a large ground campaign by U.S. forces, but she does support President Obama’s deployment of about 5,000 troops to Iraq with a limited role. She disagreed with President Obama when she urged U.S. support for Syrian rebels at the beginning of the civil war in order to prevent Islamist extremists from gaining ground.
Clinton also supported using the U.S. Air Force to implement a no-fly zone in Syria and to create safe zones for refugees. Clinton remains committed to ending the civil war in Syria by forcing Assad to resign from power as part of a political transition.
In Iraq, she favors direct U.S. military assistance to Sunni tribes and Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and expanding the U.S. forces’ role to include embedding personnel in local Iraqi units and assisting with airstrikes.
Iran
Trump would terminate the nuclear deal with Iran immediately and pledged to “dismantle” Iran’s global terrorism network in his speech about Israel and the Middle East. He supports placing severe sanctions on Iran to pressure them into a deal that dismantles their nuclear program and ends their support for terrorism.
Clinton supports the nuclear deal with reservations. She has released a 5-point plan to respond to the deal’s negative consequences, Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses of the Iranian regime. She supports expanding sanctions on Iran for these actions.
Neither candidate has explicitly endorsed overthrowing the Iranian regime, but Clinton took a step in that direction in 2010 when she said she hopes there will be “some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state.” She regrets that she and the Obama Administration did not more forcefully support the 2009 Green Revolution and promises “that won’t happen again.”
Neither candidate has endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act and concerns have been raised about both candidates’ advisers.
One of Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, was the assistant-editor of an Islamist journal with her family members, some of whom have Muslim Brotherhood links. She has not directly said anything extremist and is married to a pro-Israel Jew. Critics point out that although she has a security clearance, her familial ties may influence her advice to Clinton.
In her book, Clinton seems to understand that the Brotherhood is hostile to the U.S., deceptive and closely linked to Hamas. However, she seems to accept Islamist political parties like the Brotherhood as potential democratic partners. Her State Dept. operation in Egypt gave election training to Brotherhood members and a Clinton Foundation member belonged to the Brotherhood.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/election-Trump-Clinton-640.gif320640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-05-06 09:28:142016-05-08 07:21:28Clinton and Trump: Where Do They Stand on Islamism?
Last week a few members of the Austrian Identitare, an anti-mass migration youth movement, chose an Adrenalin-filled way to protest a pro-migrant play at the Burgtheater in Austria. Bourne-like footage show the two agile climbers scaling the front of the centuries old stone building with ropes and ladders in broad daylight, hanging a banner at the apex, dropping leaflets, and repelling to the ground while capturing it on video.
More impressive than the feat itself is the fact these young people appear to have a better grasp on reality than the seasoned democratic, left-leaning leadership of Austria. It seems to be plain to Identitare that the massive influx of mostly Muslim immigrants is becoming a very real threat to their safety and identity as a nation. I guess Washington, DC isn’t the only place in the world that sucks common sense out of a person’s brain, but simply surrounding oneself with others who are saturated in political correctness tends to have the same outcome.
Previously, the same play was performed at the University of Vienna when members of the youth group protested by going on stage, interrupting the play, and pointing out the hypocritical ways of those in political power who continue to open the gates to immigrants regardless of the consequences to the citizens themselves.
In response to the play being disrupted, Ms. Bures, president of the Parliamentary National Assembly, invited the drama team to conduct the play at the Burgtheater, under honorary protection. Three days later a 21 year old University student was brutally gang-raped by three Afghani refugees. This time Identitare showed up to the theater, as the video shows, with a large banner with the word “Hypocrite” which was hung in order to call attention to the political leaders whose actions don’t protect Austrian’s women and children.
Austrian Identitare leader, Martin Sellner can be heard in the video addressing the leadership stating,
“You hypocrites, where are your tears and plays for the victims of terrorism and immigration.”
The youth group is apparently having some sway in the current Austrian election, as the leading right candidate may have gotten a bump from the group’s previous activism. Freedom Party of Austria candidate, Norbert Hofer, recently pulled way ahead in round one of the voting, up some 36%. He sounds somewhat like Trump with his strong border and anti-Islamic stances. Breitbart reports,
“Although Hofer has already declared he would be a President ‘for all Austrians’ and that none would have to fear from his election, it seems likely he would be one of Europe’s most robustly Eurosceptic, and anti-mass migration heads of state. Campaigning under the slogan ‘Austria First’, he has said Austria must stop taking refugees and that ‘I do not want this to become a Muslim country’.”
In addition to Austria’s youth movement, a powerful video was also put out by the German Identitare, called “Future of Europe”. The video displays numerous clean-cut 20 somethings making truthful statements and plausible demands regarding their disappearing European identity as a result of years of multiculturalism, diversity and immigration placed upon them by liberal policies.
Some of the statements mirror our own here in America as we see the European Union breaking down before our eyes as a direct result of those policies and programs that continually put the citizens’ well-being behind immigrants and refugees.
One cannot read the following quotes without identifying with them. They state:
“You do politics which sacrifice our values and traditions for a multicultural Utopia.
You love and support the foreign and hate and fight what is our own.
Identity is costly, we are becoming aware of it again.
You turn people into commodities, children into objects and declare genders and families obsolete.
You create yourselves a new people and turn us into foreigners.”
Their demands are just. Here are a few:
“We demand an end to an educational system which wants to instill us into shame and self-hatred.
We demand the end of societal mainstream in which common sense yields to political correctness.
We do not want a standing place in the parlor. We want the end of a party.”
This all sounds very familiar with the ideological battles we wage here on a daily basis. We need American youth ready to lead like these young people. They are out there, and are needed now to stand up and voice truth in a country not far behind Europe.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Austrian-Identitare.jpg340640Suzanne Shattuckhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSuzanne Shattuck2016-05-02 16:20:272016-05-02 16:20:27Young Austrian Patriots Are High Speed, Low Drag
ABOUT THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM
Here is the story from 
The reporter quotes extensively from Wendy Young described here:
Defining the Threat
Defeating the Ideology
ISIS, Iraq and Syria
Iran
.jpg)
Ryan Mauro is
