Tag Archive for: Fitna

Latest News: The Muslim Immigrant Invasion of Europe

This is a round-up of sorts of some migration news coming out of Europe….

German refugee facilitiesDeutsche Welle tells us: Google recently pulled a controversial map showing the location of all refugee homes in Germany for fear it could fuel right-wing violence.http://www.dw.com/en/attacks-against-germanys-refugee-homes-on-the-rise/a-18604812

In Sweden, Christians harassed in group home for asylum seekers. 

From the Christian Post:

Syrian Christian refugees living in Sweden say they were forced out of their asylum house by Muslim refugees who demanded they hide their crosses and banned them from using communal areas in the home they shared.

The Christians, comprised of two families, were seeking asylum after fleeing from the Islamic State in Syria. And the place they were staying at housed around 80 people with many being Syrian Muslims.

While Swedish police said they weren’t notified about the harassment, immigration officials visited the residence to outline the government’s rules for those who continue to live in asylum housing.

[….]

The violence of ISIS against Syrian Christians and other citizens who refuse to obey Islamic law knows no bounds.

The article goes on to tell us of some of the horrors facing the remaining Christian population of Syria.

Also from Sweden, see Gatestone on the ‘unaccompanied refugee children’ situation there where everyone knows the “children” are mostly young men over 18 years old.

Denmark has no more places to house refugees!

See Breitbart News:

Denmark’s capacity to admit migrants is near breaking point. With 12,000 refugees searching for a place to live, nearly a third of the nation’s struggling municipalities say that they have little to offer newcomers.

In the Czech Republic, Syrian and North African refugees are not welcome, but more Czechs willing to take in Ukrainians. 

From Ceskenoviny:

The Czech Republic should not accept any refugees from Syria, this is the view held by 71 percent of Czechs. When it comes to the refugees from North Africa, the figure stands at 72 percent.

The view that some immigrants from Syria and North Africa should be accepted is held by 26 percent and 24 percent of Czechs, respectively.

Ireland goes along with EU plan and will double its refugee intake.

From Big News Network.com:

DUBLIN, Ireland – Ireland is to more than double its intake of refugees as part of a European Union plan to relocate up to 40,000 refugees which is being coordinated in response to the unprecedented migration crisis in the Mediterranean.

Under the EU plan, a number of ‘hotspots’ in Italy and Greece will be established where migrants will be registered and fingerprinted. Individuals who are identified as likely to be genuine refugees can be put forward for relocation to another EU country where they will be given the opportunity of protection, while irregular migrants will be returned to their home country.

Ireland has agreed to relocate 600 people over the next two years. This is in addition to the country’s previous commitment to resettle 520 refugees directly from areas affected by conflict, and the humanitarian search and rescue missions undertaken in the region by the Naval Service which saved more than 3,300 refugees.

The Slovak government: we will only take Christian refugees as permanent residents.

From the Slovak Spectator:

THE SLOVAK government remains reluctant to take in refugees within the proposed European schemes and has recently conceded to accept 100 people from Syria under the condition they are Christians, but has agreed to provide temporary shelter for migrants that have already arrived in Austria.

Based on a recent bilateral deal, some 500 refugees seeking asylum in Austria will stay in Slovakia temporarily, until their asylum process is finished and, based on the results, they will either move back to Austria or be deported from the EU.

In Germany there is more news accusing “rightwingers” of torching asylum facilities.

From Deutsche Welle:

The rate of violence perpetrated against refugee homes in Germany in 2015 has already outstripped the whole of 2014. The Interior Ministry has warned that right-wing violence is on the rise in the west of the country.

[….]

According to a statement from Germany’s Interior Ministry on Thursday, there have been more attacks on homes for asylum seekers in the first half of 2015 than in the entirety of 2014.

Read the article, there is an admission that a growing number of these cases are perpetrated by people with no known affiliation. Hmmm! Is that what happens when a government is so obviously not responsive to a large number of its citizens? By the way, the article also tells us that these arson attacks were originally confined to the Eastern parts of Germany, but have now spread into the West.  Fascinating that we hear nothing of this in the US media.

I’m sure there is much more news from Europe.  If I see something interesting as the day goes on, I’ll add it.

For our entire archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ click here.

Salman Rushdie: World Learned ‘Wrong Lessons’ from His Iran Fatwa

peace with iran tshirts

‘Fear disguised as respect’

“The writer said that the controversy that surrounded the PEN prize to Charlie Hebdo this year convinced him that, if the attacks against ‘The Satanic Verses’ had occurred today, ‘these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority.’” Indeed so. That was what happened after our free speech event in Garland, Texas: the international media, including many “conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, excoriated Pamela Geller and declared that she should have shown more “respect” — which really meant that she should have submitted in fear, as they were doing.

The freedom of speech is seriously imperiled, and most Americans have bought into the idea that “hate speech,” which they assume to be an entity that can be objectively established, does not deserve protection. They have no idea that they’re thereby paving the way for authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

“Salman Rushdie says the world learned the ‘wrong lessons’ from his Iran fatwa ordeal,” Agence France-Presse, July 22, 2015:

More than a quarter century after being slapped with a fatwa from Iran [sic] calling for his murder over his book “The Satanic Verses”, Salman Rushdie says the world has learned the “wrong lessons” about freedom of expression.

The British author, in an interview published Wednesday by the French news magazine L’Express, said his ordeal by religious fanatics determined to violently avenge what they construed as blasphemy should have served as a wake-up call to the world.

Instead, after the September 11, 2001 attack on America and the massacre in Paris in January this year of cartoonists and staff at the Charlie Hebdo satirical weekly, and with the ongoing rampage of the brutal Islamic State group in the Middle East, Rushdie saidsome writers and other people were too cowed to talk freely about Islam.

“It seems we learned the wrong lessons,” he said in the interview printed in French.“Instead of concluding we need to oppose these attacks on freedom of expression, we believed we should calm them through compromises and ceding.”

The “politically correct” positions voiced by some — including a few prominent authors who disagreed with Charlie Hebdo receiving a freedom of speech award at a PEN literary gala in New York in May — were motivated by fear, Rushdie said.

– ‘Fear disguised as respect’ –

“If people weren’t being killed right now, if bombs and Kalashnikovs weren’t speaking today, the debate would be very different. Fear is being disguised as respect,” he said….

The writer said that the controversy that surrounded the PEN prize to Charlie Hebdo this year convinced him that, if the attacks against “The Satanic Verses” had occurred today, “these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority”….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sweden arrests two Muslims accused of jihad terrorism

Islamic State vows to “fill the streets of Paris with dead bodies”

Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal: It’s Déjà vu All Over Again

Democratic Party leader Barack Obama is doing in 2015 with the Iran Nuclear Deal what another Democrat Party leader did with a nuclear deal with North Korea in 1994. That Democrat is Bill Clinton, whose wife Hillary is running for the White House in 2016.

Perhaps it is time to read excerpts from what President Clinton said on October 18th, 1994:

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea‘s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

[ … ]

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea‘s isolation.

[ … ]

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we’ve made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure…

Read the full text of President Clinton’s announcement of a nuclear deal with North Korea click here.

Sound familiar? Here are the comments by President Obama on the Iran nuclear deal:

History shows us what happened with the North Korean nuclear arms deal. Today North Korea is exporting its nuclear and missile technology to other nations, such as Iran, with impunity.

As Yogi Berra once said this is Déjà vu All Over Again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Meet 7 Dangerous Iranians Who Will No Longer Be Sanctioned

Iran Vows to Buy Weapons Anytime, Anywhere

Ted Cruz: Because of Iran Deal, Jihadists ‘Will Use Our Money to Murder Americans’

Investigative Project on Terrorism: Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrates Obama Administration

Kerry: Iran vow to defy U.S. “very disturbing”

It begins to dawn even upon the Secretary of State that he may not quite have achieved peace in our time. But he has already given away the store.

“Kerry says Iran vow to defy U.S. is ‘very disturbing,’Reuters, July 21, 2015:

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama/Kerry Released Iranian Nuclear ‘Scientist’ But Left Jailed Americans Behind

Authorities seek to revoke citizenship of Oregon imam who aided jihadis

D.C.: Muslim accused of fundraising and recruiting for jihad terror group

UK PM David Cameron: ‘The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist [Islamic] ideology itself’

Yesterday, The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) welcomed Prime Minister David Cameron’s bold speech outlining the government’s five-year plan for tackling extremism. Principles central to the Prime Minister’s vision closely resemble the ideas and policy recommendations consistently put forward in HJS work, while many of the manifestations of extremism referred to by Mr Cameron have been long-standing issues of concern for the staff of the Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism (CRT). Key areas of influence include:

Identifying Islamist Ideology at the Root of Radicalisation

The Prime Minister explicitly recognised that “the root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself” and that countering the growing appeal of jihadist ideology is a generational struggle.

  • HJS has a long track record of evidence-based research showing that Islamist ideology is a fundamental component of radicalisation and can be an incubator of terrorism. The role of ideology was first identified in the Government’s Prevent strategy of 2011, for which HJS’ flagship work tracking Islamism-inspired terrorism offences and attacks in the UK since 1999 was the most-cited work.

Another crucial shift in emphasis was the recognition that “extremists are self-identifying as Muslims” and Mr Cameron’s statement on Islamist violence: “To deny it has anything to do with Islam means you disempower the critical reforming voices”.

  • HJS has long called for the government to acknowledge the religious element to extremism and has published a theological counter narrative to al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups showing that their arguments are not based on traditionally recognised interpretations of classical Islamic sources.

Challenging Extremist Propaganda

Mr Cameron challenged the prevalence of conspiracy theories surrounding counter-radicalisation efforts, in particular the growing belief that the Prevent strategy is about spying on Muslim communities and the criminalisation of Islam, ideas that have been deliberately fuelled by extremist groups.

  • HJS has repeatedly advocated the need to challenge such false claims head-on and show the extremist rationale behind them. After the pro-terrorist group CAGE came out in support of ‘Jihadi John’ earlier this year, CRT exposed the group’s long-standing jihadist ideology and pernicious anti-Prevent campaigns.

The Prime Minister singled out the National Union of Students (NUS) for criticism, saying: “When you choose to ally yourselves with an organisation like CAGE […] it really does, in my opinion, shame your organisation and your noble history of campaigning for justice”.

  • HJS’s campus extremism monitoring unit, Student Rights, recently publishedPreventing Prevent?, showing the scale of resistance among students to government attempts to challenge extremism at universities. Student Rights showed how extremist narratives have influenced the debate on campuses, highlighting in particular the NUS commitment to work with CAGE to campaign against Prevent.

Empowering Moderate Voices

The Prime Minister asserted that “We can’t stand neutral in this battle of ideas”. He pledged to help empower the “strong, positive Muslim voices that are being drowned out”, stating: “This means confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence – but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative”.

  • HJS has long recommended that central and local government as well as civic institutions, including universities, community centres and charities, distance themselves from non-violent extremist groups. Most recently, HJS interviews with the North East Counter Terrorism Unit and West Yorkshire Police found that a key part of Prevent is both building trust and confidence with British Muslim communities and being prepared to have difficult conversations about the prevalence of extreme and intolerant beliefs.

Strengthening Regulation to Combat Islamist Entryism

The Prime Minister reiterated the government’s commitment to strengthening regulatory bodies in order to challenge extremism, mentioning specifically the failures of the education watchdog Ofsted during the ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal and pledging to “strengthen Ofcom’s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels broadcasting extremist content”.

  • For over five years, HJS staff have exposed instances of Islamist entryism – starting with the revolutionary Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir securing government funding for their educational charity and schools. Since then, HJS has repeatedly advocated greater powers, political will and training for regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission, Ofsted and Ofcom to effectively challenge extremists seeking to take advantage of the UK’s charitable, education and broadcast media sectors.

Tackling ‘Honour’-based Abuse, FGM and Forced Marriage

HJS has led the “uncomfortable debates” referenced by Mr Cameron in his speech yesterday regarding cultural practices such as forced marriage and ‘honour’-based abuse that, he asserted, “run directly counter” to British values.

  • Earlier this year, HJS published a report on ‘honour’ killings in the UK, as part of the Britain’s Lost Women campaign led by Cosmopolitan Magazine and charity Karma Nirvana. A follow-up report raising awareness of institutional failures in care provision for victims of ‘honour’-based abuse was launched earlier this month on the UK’s first ever Day of Memory to an audience of 100 leading professionals.
  • HJS has provided thought leadership on Female Genital Mutilation, publicly asking why cultural sensitivities have been prioritised over protecting young girls living in this country. The Prime Minister echoed this sentiment in his speech yesterday, saying: “Too often we have lacked the confidence to enforce our values, for fear of causing offence. […] No more turning a blind eye on the false basis of cultural sensitivities.”

Working with Internet Companies to Challenge Online Extremism

The Prime Minister referred to the need for internet companies to help the government “identify potential terrorists online” and to “protect their users from the scourge of radicalisation”. Specifically, he said: “many of their commercial models are built around monitoring platforms for personal data, packaging it up and selling it on to third parties… they are happy to engineer technologies to track our likes and dislikes. But when it comes to doing what’s right in the fight against terrorism, we too often hear that it’s all too difficult. Well I’m sorry – I just don’t buy that”.

    • Mr Cameron’s position echoes the findings of a recent HJS report, Surveillance After Snowden, which explored the impact of Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified government information. The report examined the government’s relationship with communication service providers, finding that: “So much emphasis has been placed on the government’s collection of data that the activities of private companies have been given insufficient attention” and “…Better cooperation between the government and [internet companies] is needed urgently”.

Key HJS publications:

Thought Leadership

Tomi Lahren: Dear President Obama Climate Change Did Not Slaughter 4 Marines in Chatanooga

One America News reporter Tomi Lahren doesn’t mince words. Tomi writes, “Radical Islamists, have brought the fight right here to the Red, White and Blue and it’s about time we bring it to them. Full force. Let’s show them what the U.S. of A looks like up close and personal. Show ’em what a B1 bomber looks like flying overhead. Show ’em what they’re messing with. Put the fear of OUR God in their desert. Because clearly our lack of strategy isn’t working.”

EDITORS NOTE: Watch ‘On Point with Tomi Lahren’ NIGHTLY 7:00 p.m. PT/10:00 p.m. ET on One America News (OAN). If you don’t have One America News Network, call DirecTV at 1 (800) 531-5000, DISH at (855) 318-0572 or your cable provider and demand it to be added to your lineup!

Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheet: What You Need to Know!

We first posted a fact sheet in 2007, updated it again in 2010 and again in 2013. Here are facts you need to know about refugee resettlement to the United States:

1.   Since 1975, the U.S. has resettled over 3 million refugees, with annual admissions figures ranging from a high of 207,000 in 1980 to a low of 27,110 in 2002 (in the aftermath of 911) .

The average number of refugees admitted annually since 1980 is about 98,000. Additionally, in recent years, another 40,000 or more per year come in as asylum seekers and Cuban/Haitian entrants – all with the same rights and entitlements as refugees.

All these flows detonate their own chain migration flows in addition to the refugee influx.  These follow-on flows have easily multiplied the original admission numbers by a factor of 4 or more.

The quota for 2013 is 70,000 and it looks like it will be met this year.  There is strong political pressure to get refugee numbers back to over 100,000.

2.  The U.S. takes more than twice as many refugees as all countries from the rest of the industrialized world combined.

3. One of the operative assumptions of those in the refugee industry is that, since the U.S. is behind most of the chaos in the world – Syria, here we come!, it is morally obligated to take the lead in resettling the world’s refugees.  Yet, for 2012 the leading countries, in order of numbers of refugees sent to the U.S., were Bhutan, Burma, Iraq, Somalia, Cuba,  Dem. Rep. Congo, Iran, Eritrea, Sudan.  All America’s fault?  In very recent memory the MSM was celebrating Bhutan and suggesting the U.S. had something to learn from the Bhutanese concept of a “Product of National Happiness”.

Ironically, the U.S. refugee program diverts resources from assistance on the ground to those very countries in the developing world which carry the main burden of refugee crises.

4. In recent years up to 95% of the refugees coming to the U.S. were referred by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or were the relatives of UN-picked refugees.  Until the late 90’s the U.S. picked the large majority of refugees for resettlement in the U.S.

Considering that the refugee influx causes increases in all legal and illegal immigration as family and social networks are established in the U.S., the U.N. is effectively dictating much of U.S. immigration policy.

5. NIMBYists gone wild: As a Senator, Sam Brownback harshly rejected the resettlement of Somali Bantu in his own state even though he was a major advocate among evangelicals for increased refugee immigration to the U.S..

The state of Delaware has resettled less than 10 refugees annually in recent years even though then Sen. Joe Biden was a sponsor of the 1980 Refugee Act  – the bill which defines the refugee program we have today.

Upon entry, a network of private, “nonprofit” agencies (so-called “voluntary agencies”) selects the communities where refugees will live. The agencies are either headquartered in Washington DC or have lobbying offices there.

Washington DC took less than 200 refugees between 2007 and 2012.

6. According to a July 2012 GAO report (Refugee Resettlement:

Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program:  “most public entities such as public schools and health departments generally said that voluntary agencies notified them of the number of refugees expected to arrive in the coming year, but did not consult them regarding the number of refugees they could serve”.

7. This same GAO report quotes a state official who notes “that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates (private contractors) have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.”

8. Refugee resettlement is a self-perpetuating global enterprise.  Staff and management of the hundreds of taxpayer supported U.S. contractors are largely refugees or immigrants whose purpose is to gain entry for more refugees, usually for their co-ethnics.

9.  According to David Robinson, a former acting director of the State Department’s refugee bureau, writing about the refugee contractors: “the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget” and its lobbying umbrella “wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the Hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year ….If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned….  The solution its members offer to every refugee crisis is simplistic and the same: increase the number of admissions to the United States without regard to budgets…” How Public Opinion Shaped Refugee Policy in Kosovo, 2000, David M. Robinson, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA432218

We hesitate to quibble with an authoritative source on the percentage of federal money floating the refugee industry, but from an accountant’s perspective that  percentage is actually over 100 % given the amount of money the industry is able to pocket without any proof that it was spent on refugees.

10. According to Ken Tota, Deputy Director at HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement,  Congress has never in his 25-year tenure questioned the refugee quota proposed by the administration. By law, Congress is supposed to consent to the annual quota but obviously refuses to take this role seriously.

11.  Refugee “self-sufficiency” is an important measure of success and a basis for assigning refugees to agencies in future contracts. The definition of “self-sufficiency” has been steadily defined downward and today is virtually  meaningless. A refugee can be considered “self-sufficient” while using all of the programs listed in item 16 below with the exception of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

12.  Assimilation is no longer a goal for any agency involved in refugee resettlement – government or private contractor. The private contractors’ engagement with the refugee is so short – less than 4 months in most cases, that nothing approaching assimilation could even be considered. The term “assimilation” is no longer a part of government lexicon and does not even occur in dozens of recent reports and papers generated about refugee resettlement. The operative term in vogue now is “integration” with its clear intent of maintenance of ethnic identity.

13.    A refugee or an asylum seeker must show a “well-founded” fear of persecution on account of a political view or membership in a racial, ethnic, religious or social group.  The definition of a refugee has been widely stretched by all 3 branches of the government – the Judiciary, the Congress and the Administration.

In fact, Congress can name whatever group it wants to be a refugee or asylum seeker.  For instance Congress passed a law declaring China’s one-child policy to be an example of persecution based upon a political view. Not surprising: China now heads up the list of successful asylum seekers.

People may seek asylum in the U.S. based upon domestic abuse, FGM and even lack of services for the disabled.

The government does not publicize rates of admission by category so it is not possible to tell, for instance, if the vague and easy to fake ‘social group’ category is more commonly used than the vague and easy to fake ‘political group’ category.

Because of the privacy rights accorded the new arrivals, we have no idea which category was used by Tamerlane Tsarnaev’s parents to gain admission to the world’s most generous immigration program.

14.   The Obama administration has placed a priority on LGBTQI asylum seekers and refugees. This has resulted in an upsurge of asylum requests on this basis – even from countries like England! Since the State Department does not keep data about numbers admitted by reason for admission, we can’t obtain exact numbers of those admitted on the basis of LBGTQI persecution, but one private refugee agency has set up an office in Nairobi, Kenya to assist intending LBGTQI refugees.   This office also advises about how to get into the refugee pipeline.  In other words, a private contractor is recruiting refugees who will eventually become the contractor’s  profit-generating clients.   At the 2012 conference of refugee contractors sponsored by the DHHS Office of Refugee resettlement a refugee contractor demanded that Medicaid pay for sex change operations if needed by newly arrived refugees.

15.   The program has gradually shifted towards the resettlement of refugees from Muslim countries. Some individuals from Muslim countries are Christians or other minorities, but most are Muslims. In the early 90’s the percentage of Muslim refugees was near 0; by 2000 the program was 44% Muslim. The Muslim component decreased after 911, but today is back up to about 40% and is set to rise from here.

Membership in a U.S.-registered Islamic terrorist group is not a bar to entry on the program as long as the refugee was not a “direct participant” in “terrorist” activity.

16.   Refugees, successful asylum seekers, trafficking victim visa holders, “Cuban-Haitian Entrants” (which are mostly Cuban), S.I.V’s (for Iraqis and Afghanis)  and other smaller humanitarian admission groups are eligible for ALL federal, state and local welfare programs 30 days after arrival.

Refugee access to welfare on the same basis as a U.S. citizen has made the program a global magnet.

The federal programs available to them include:

  • ∙Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) formerly known as AFDC
  • Medicaid
  • Food Stamps
  • Public Housing
  • Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
  • Social Security Disability Insurance
  • Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) (direct services only)
  • Child Care and Development Fund
  • Independent Living Program
  • Job Opportunities for Low Income Individuals (JOLI)
  • Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Postsecondary Education Loans and Grants
  • Refugee Assistance Programs
  • Title IV Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Payments (if parents are ⌠qualified immigrants – refugees, asylees, etc)
  • Title XX Social Services Block Grant Funds

17.   Welfare use is staggering among refugees. Welfare usage is never counted by officials as part of the cost of the program. Yet, when it is included, the total cost of the refugee program soars to at least 10-20 billion a year.

As some Americans are pushed off of time-limited welfare programs many refugees are going on to life-time cash assistance programs. For instance, 12.7% of refugees are on SSI – a lifetime entitlement to a monthly check / Medicaid for elderly or disabled. This rate of usage is at least 4 times higher than the rate of usage for SSI among the native-born population and is reportedly rising from these already very high levels.

Permanent and intergenerational welfare dependence has been allowed to take hold to a significant degree in some refugee groups.

Find latest welfare usage among refugees here (latest data available is from 2009) click here.

Find table TABLE II-14: Public Assistance Utilization Among refugees who arrived during the 5 years previous to the survey 57.7% are on government medical assistance such as Medicaid, about 25% have no health insurance at all, 70.2% are receiving food stamps, 31.6% are in public housing (an additional percentage is on a public housing waiting list), and 38.3 % are getting cash assistance such as TANF or SSI.

The figure of 57.7% dependent upon government medical assistance is actually an undercount since it excludes children under 16.

18.   Medium size towns, such as Bowling Green, KY, Nashville, TN, Ft. Wayne, IN, Boise, ID and Manchester, NH, are serving as the main reception centers for the refugee program.

19. Refugees are not tested for many diseases, such as HIV.  Refugees are a major contributing factor to TB rates among the foreign-born. TB among the foreign-born now accounts for about half of the TB in America.

20. The money the U.S. spends bringing one refugee to the U.S. could have helped 500 individuals overseas in countries where they currently reside.

21. It has never been reported in the U.S. that 47% of loans made to refugees for transportation to the U.S. are unpaid leaving an unpaid balance of $450 million. This amount – slightly out of date, does not include interest or an unknown amount that has been written off. We will announce the new balance as soon as it is available.

22. Refugee resettlement is profitable to the organizations involved in it. They receive money from the federal government for each refugee they bring over. They have almost no real responsibilities for these refugees. After 4 months the “sponsoring” organization is not even required to know where the refugee lives.

There are 9 main major refugee resettlement organizations (Volags from “Voluntary Agency”) with approximately 450 affiliated organizations throughout the country; many are run by former refugees.   Below are the 9 Volags that operate today:

  • U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB),
  • Lutheran Immigrant Aid Society (LIRS),
  • International Rescue Committee (IRC),
  • World Relief Corporation,
  • Immigrant and Refugee Services of America (IRSA),
  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS),
  • Church World Service (CWS),
  • Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA,
  • Ethiopian Community Development Center (ECDC),

Below are some of the sources of income for Volags:

a.  $1,850 per refugee (including children) from the State Department.

b.  Up to $2,200 for each refugee by participating in a U.S. DHHS program known as Matching Grant. To get the $2,200, the Volag need only show it spent $200 and gave away $800 worth of donated clothes, furniture or cars.

c. The Volag pockets 25% of every transportation loan it collects from refugees it “sponsors”.

d. All Volag expenses and overhead in the Washington, DC HQ are paid by the U.S. government.

e. For their refugee programs, Volags collect money from all federal grant programs – “Marriage Initiative”, “Faith-based”, “Ownership Society”, etc., as well as from various state and local grants.

The program is so lucrative that in some towns the Catholic Church has lessened support for traditional charity works to put more effort into resettlement. It uses collection offerings to promote the refugee resettlement program.

23. Despite their rhetoric, refugee agencies have steadfastly refused to use their own resources to maintain the U.S. refugee resettlement program. Public money has thoroughly driven out private money.

A program known as the Private Sector Initiative allowed sponsoring agencies to bring over refugees if the agencies were willing to cover costs of resettlement and support. It was discontinued for lack of use in the mid-1990s. Today the agencies are on record as opposed to diverting more federal refugee dollars to overseas refugee assistance (where each dollar will go further in helping refugees) because it might mean fewer dollars for them!

As with other government-dependent industries there is a revolving door between the refugee industry and the federal government which pays its bills.

24. To give an idea of the staying power of the refugee program:

When we began taking Southeast Asian refugees in the late 70’s, the refugee agencies hired temporary workers, thinking the program would only go for a few months. More than 37 years after the last American left Vietnam we are still taking refugees from South East Asia. At least 1.5 million have come in as refugees alone. As well, it has detonated chain migration of non-refugee immigrants.

25. The program is rife with fraud and corruption at all levels. UN personnel often sell access to the program and once here refugees make false claims of family relationship in order to facilitate wider immigration. Government grant fraud is common among local refugee service providers.

26. The refugee program has a significant impact on U.S. foreign policy. It also affects internal and foreign policies of other nations by allowing them to rid themselves of unwanted minorities or close their borders to asylum seekers in the knowledge that the U.S. will take them in.

Click here for contact information for your state’s refugee coordinators

EDITORS NOTE: This fact sheet originally appeared on Refugee Resettlement Watch.

America Must Rethink Its Immigration Policy

It is high time for the American people to finally wake up and stop spending so much time trying to be politically correct.  Politicians must stop obsessing about winning the next election and begin to focus on what’s best for America, especially in light of what happened last week in Chattanooga, TN.

Last week, a naturalized American citizen from Kuwait killed five members of our armed forces. Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a 24 year old Muslim, was brought to the U.S. by his parents when he was six years old.  He also retained Jordanian citizenship by his parents being from Jordan.

Within the intelligence community, Abdulazeez is what is called a sleeper.  There are not only sleeper individuals in the U.S.; but one of law enforcements greatest fears is the “sleeper cells” in the country.  Sleeper cells are terrorists in waiting.  They are awaiting instructions to become active; but until such an order is issued, they are to assimilate into American society and stay below the radar of law enforcement (as Abulazeez seemed to have done).

Because it is unknowable how many sleeper cells or individuals are in the U.S., it is now time to shut down the border and to implement a three year moratorium on all immigration; and this includes foreigners wanting to attend university in the U.S.

We can no longer be the dumping ground for everyone seeking political asylum or a better life.

We must immediately cease from allowing immigrants from Muslim countries, period.  We must immediately cease from allowing immigrants into the country who have no marketable skills to bring to the U.S.  Family reunification should have absolutely no place in our future immigration policy.

Becoming an American citizen is a privilege not a right.  America should not have to apologize for putting stringent conditions on who is eligible for citizenship.  We can no longer allow foreigners to depress wages for Americans and to continue to allow Fortune 500 companies to import cheap labor at the expense of citizens.

If the shooting in Chattanooga didn’t scare the hell out of Americans, maybe these immigration trends will.

According to the Institute of International Education’s “Fields of Study of Students from Selected Places of origin 2013-14, “127,332 student visas were granted to students from 43 predominantly Muslim countries (14% of all student visas issued).”

The top five countries receiving visas were:  Saudi Arabia (53,919), Iran (10,194), Nigeria (7,921), Indonesia (7,920), and Kuwait (7,288).  This total of 87,242 represents almost 70% of all student visas issued from Muslim countries.  This would explain why Arabic is the fastest growing language on college campuses.

According to the Modern Language Association (MLA), “Enrollment in Arabic classes grew 127% nationally.”  The MLA listed Arabic as the 8th most popular language learned in American institutions of higher education in 2013.

What rational person or sane country would allow people from the above countries to enter the U.S.?  We know where the hotbeds of radical Islam are and yet we continue to allow people from those countries to come to the U.S.  The F.B.I. has already admitted to Congress that terrorists from the Middle East have already come into the U.S. through Mexico and they have no idea where they are.

By most accounts, Muslims are least likely to assimilate than other groups of immigrants.  This isolation makes them fertile targets for radicalization.  France and Britain are currently experiencing this dilemma.  America is on the verge of becoming another France or another Britain.

Yes, I am suggesting profiling those who want to enter into the U.S.  To my liberal and politically correct friends, get over it.  This is about national security and our safety.

Some will attempt to argue that this is discrimination; and I would agree with that assertion.  Those who seek to legally enter into the U.S. have no inherent right to be accepted into our country; therefore America has the absolute right to be discriminating in regards to who enters the country.

We need not provide a reason nor give an explanation for changing our immigration policies.  Our national interests and our national security trump all of their aspirations.

We must stop all immigration immediately; clear up the backlog of those in the pipeline, estimated to be just over 4 million people; and remove all those in the country illegally.  This will give us a chance to digest and assimilate those who are already in the que for legal entry into the U.S.

How many more Americans must die because too many politicians want to play politics with our national security?

Ex-U.S. Embassy Hostage and Friend of Gov. Scott Walker Influenced Rejection of Obama’s Iran Nuclear Pact

Yesterday, on The Lisa Benson Show, I gave as an example of hope about defeating the Obama Iran nuclear executive order, the Sunday talk show comment by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who threw his hat in the ring last Monday when he declared for the Republican nomination race for President. Asked on Walker: I’d toss Iran deal on Day 1 Sunday talk show about his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, today up for a vote at the UN Security Council, said he would toss it on his first day in office, if elected President. Further, he said,

“It’s a bad deal for us, it’s a bad deal for Israel, it’s a bad deal for the world,“It’s not just the starting gun, it will accelerate the nuclear arms race,” he added. “And it is empowering Iran to do what they’re going to do.”

Last Monday during his announcement he referenced Kevin Hermening in the audience. Hermening was one of the 52 U.S. Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution. Hermening, a Marine guard at the time of the Embassy takeover, spent 43 days in solitary confinement. Hermening now 56 years old had befriended Walker back in the 1990s. It is through that relationship Governor Walker became well acquainted with the brutality and untrustworthiness of the Islamic regime. That relationship with Hermening enabled him to to size up the Iran nuclear deal , touted by President Obama and Democratic allies, was bad for the U.S., Israel and other allies in the Middle East. The Embassy hostages had pressed claims for compensation in federal court despite the opposition from our State Department and won. However those claims have never been honored by Tehran.

The least the Obama Administration could do is retain a portion of sanctioned funds in U.S. possession to pay the claims of the 1979 Embassy Hostages like Hermening, Gov. Walker’s friend.

image
Walker: I’d toss Iran deal on Day 1

“It will accelerate the nuclear arms race,” he said.

Preview by Yahoo

The AP reported on Governor Walker’s long relationship with Kevin Herminger,  Walker’s Iran view shaped by friendship with ex-US hostage

image
Walker’s Iran view shaped by friendship with ex-US hosta…

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a reason for aggressively opposing the nuclear deal with Iran — and it’s personal.
Preview by Yahoo

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a reason for aggressively opposing the nuclear deal with Iran — and it’s personal.

Neither his foreign policy adviser nor a member of his inner circle has shaped the Republican presidential candidate’s position. Walker’s deep distrust for Iran instead comes from his long friendship with one of the Americans held hostage for 444 days more than three decades ago.

Kevin Hermening was a 20-year-old Marine sergeant stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 when militant Iran students overran the building and captured him and 51 others. Thirty-five years after his release, Hermening has become the face of Walker’s foreign policy, as the two-term governor works to build credibility on a high-stakes issue heading into the 2016 presidential contest.

[…]

As foreign policy emerges as a leading issue in the 2016 election, Walker plans to keep featuring Hermening in the campaign — a role Hermening gladly accepts.

“I don’t think the governor needed to be in the cell with me in order to understand that that’s not how you treat people, and that you shouldn’t reward people with that behavior,” Hermening said, as he described opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran in an interview with The Associated Press.

He said months of coverage of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have stirred up emotions for him and his fellow captives, and he criticized the deal as too soft on Iran and lacking much-needed reimbursement for the 52 hostages and their families.

Politics brought Walker and Hermening together a quarter century ago.

It was either 1990 or 1991 —Hermening can’t remember which year — when a fresh-out-of-college Walker helped his unsuccessful campaign for a seat in Wisconsin’s state assembly. Their roles soon reversed. As Walker began his political ascent, Hermening stayed involved in local party politics while running a financial planning firm.

Though he calls the governor a friend, the pair only see each other once a year — if that — at party functions.

Those 444 days Hermening was held captive are still deeply personal to the 56-year-old from Wausau, Wisconsin. He’s upbeat now about even the worst parts of the experience. Even the 43 days he spent in solitary confinement “paled in comparison” to the experiences of some of the other hostages, still wrestling with their memories of their time in captivity, he said. At least one took his own life.

Before Walker’s national rise, Hermening most often shared his tale of captivity with church groups and high school history classes.

His audience may grow dramatically. Walker’s staff is still working out the details of Hermening’s involvement in the campaign, including whether he’ll be paid. But he is expected to be regularly featured.

Regardless of his role, Hermening’s story has clearly impressed Walker.

Conclusion

It is from such personal relationships that Gov. Walker has became  aware of how dangerous the Iran nuclear deal is America, Israel and the world. That likley influenced his recognition of combating the threat of radical Islamic extremism as an important policy issue  in the 2016 Election race, should he get the nod to become his party’s standard bearer. That threat was all too real to Governor Walker and all Americans by the dastardly Islamic terror attack that took the lives of five valiant Marines and a Navy petty officer at a Chattanooga Naval/Marine Recruiting Center by a 24 year old ISIS-inspired Naturalized Palestinian American citizen, gunned down by a Police SWAT team.

image
Walker’s Iran view shaped by friendship with ex-US hosta…ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has a reason for aggressively opposing the nuclear deal with Iran — and it’s personal.
Preview by Yahoo

Grimly, History Repeats Itself

In a recent story by BBC reporter Jane Corbin, she describes the plight of Christians living in Muslim nations of the Middle East.  After a visit to an ancient monastery in Iraq, she writes,

“As I climbed the steep mountain path above the plain of Nineveh, Iraq, the sound of monks chanting and the smell of incense drifted out of the 4th Century monastery of St. Matthew.  Once, 7,000 monks worshipped here when Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire.  Almost the whole population was Christian then.  Their numbers have dwindled and now there are only six monks – and no pilgrims dare to visit.”

Describing the rise of ISIS, she writes, “They swept across the plain of Nineveh last year, forcing tens of thousands of Christians to flee from Mosul, Iraq’s second city…  A million people, two-thirds of Iraq’s Christians, fled in the decade following the fall of Saddam.  The same story is being repeated in country after country across the Middle East where the Arab Spring unleashed forces that turned against Christians and the authoritarian leaders who once protected them.”

In a radio interview on April 12, 2015, Samy Gemayel, a Phalangist Party member of the Lebanese Parliament, predicted that, “If the U.S. and international community do not intervene, Christians may be driven out of the Middle Eastern Arab countries within two years.”  Other experts predict that, in the absence of western intervention, Christian churches will be razed to the ground and the faithful either killed by radical Islamists or driven from their homes.

After centuries of brutal conquest, the Ottoman Turk empire extended across Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.  Their most significant minority, the Armenian Christians, were treated like second class citizens, denied such basic protections as property rights and personal security.  As non-Muslims, they were forced to pay discriminatory taxes and denied participation in the affairs of government.

However, by 1914, having lost virtually all of their territories in Europe and Africa, the Ottoman Turks experienced enormous internal pressures, both political and economic.  And when the Armenian minority pressed demands for representation and participation in government, ethnic tensions were intensified.  Demands by Armenian political leaders for administrative reforms, especially in provinces where Armenians represented a clear majority, invited further repression.

The Armenians were not unaware of the dangers represented by challenging the authority of their Muslim rulers.  For example, a series of massacres carried out during the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II between the years 1894-96 were still fresh in their minds.  Those massacres cost the lives of as many as three hundred thousand Armenians.

Just over 100 years ago the Armenian Christian population of the Ottoman Empire numbered some two million people.  However, beginning on April 15, 1915, the Turks accelerated their campaign to cleanse their country of their Armenian minority, ordering the entire Armenian population deported.  Tens of thousands… men, women, and children… were forced to walk hundreds of miles toward the Syrian frontier.

The Turks made no arrangements for food and water, and while a great many of all ages died of starvation or dehydration, or from attacks by criminal Muslim bands, physical exhaustion took the lives of many of the elderly and the infirm.  Straggling south under the scorching desert sun, the denial of food and water was intended only to hasten the death of the Armenians.  By 1918, some one million Armenians had been systematically murdered, and by 1923 virtually the entire Armenian Christian population had disappeared from Turkey.

It is estimated that, in the eight year period between 1915 and 1923, as many as 1.5 million Armenians perished at the hands of the Ottoman Turks.  Those Armenians who survived the genocide owed their lives to the humanitarian efforts of the United States.  Under a plan devised by Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to Constantinople, the U.S. Congress established a relief program called “Near East Relief,” and tens of thousands of Armenian lives were saved.

But now, exactly a century later, we find that history is repeating itself, but on a much broader and more brutal scale.  What happened to the Armenian Christians in the early 20th century is now happening to Christians all across Africa and the Middle East in the early 21st century.  And while western political leaders, most notably Barack Obama, the reluctant “leader” of the free world, stand transfixed in fear, not knowing what to do or how to respond, American and European Christians are attacked and murdered in the streets of their own cities.

The March 24, 2015 edition of Globe Newswire asks,

“Who is courageous enough to brave the possibility of being beheaded, burned alive, or crucified to bring the world the voices of those Christians whom Muslim extremists have been hunting off the face of the Earth?”  We are, after all, at war with a worldwide religious sect that thinks nothing of kidnapping hundreds of young girls at a time and selling them into slavery, of raping and crucifying children, of beheading their captives in order to strike terror into the hearts of non-Muslims, of setting caged captives on fire in a public square, of drowning captives by placing them in a cage and submerging them in tanks of water, or of gathering up all the Christians from among hundreds of refugees and throwing them overboard in mid-ocean as they attempt to escape the poverty and the Muslim-inspired brutality of their homelands.

So who is to stand up to such barbarism… whether in Europe, Asia, Africa, or here at home?  What do you do when all those guys dressed in black, wielding machetes and flying a black flag, come after you with guns blazing, offering to slice off your head at the shoulders and to rape your wife and your children?

Some of the 450 new troops that Obama is sending to Iraq to face 30,000 or 40,000 ISIS butchers will be embedded with forward units of the Iraqi military as advisors and air controllers.  If those U.S. troops begin to take casualties, especially fatalities, how will Obama explain that?  But worse, if radical Islamists step up their attacks on our own soil, how will Obama react to that?

On February 26, 1993, radical Islamists detonated a truck packed with explosives under the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, killing six and injuring 1,042 others.  Seven Islamic terrorists, under the leadership of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), were tracked down, captured, and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.  KSM now resides in a cell at Guantanamo Bay while Barack Obama searches for a politically expedient way to free him.

Under “enhanced” interrogation, KSM admitted to masterminding both attacks on the New York World Trade Center, as well as the attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.  In that attack, carried out by nineteen radical Islamists, nearly 3,000 people were murdered.

Since the second World Trade Center attack, radical Islamists have staged some 73 separate attacks on U.S. soil in which 93 people have been killed and 333 seriously wounded.  The last such attack occurred on July 16, 2015, when 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, born in Kuwait, opened fire on an armed forces recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, before driving seven miles to a naval reserve center where he was shot to death by police.  Five unarmed American servicemen, four Marines and a Sailor, were killed in the surprise attack.

In a July 17 article in FrontPageMag, titled “Terror Immigration to America Must Stop,” writer Daniel Greenfield writes that, “As the government began filling it with immigrants from terror zones, Tennessee, the Volunteer State, fought back because it hadn’t volunteered for this.  In 2008, it pulled out of the Federal refugee resettlement program, but the resettlement continued.”  Clearly, when Democrats are determined to swell the ranks of reliable Democratic voters, they are not easily dissuaded.

Greenfield tells us that three days before the Chattanooga terror attack, Muslims in Chattanooga protested in support of Islamberg, an exclusively Muslim New York community established by Mubarak Ali Gilani, who has said, ‘We are fighting to destroy the enemy.  We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.’  These are the people that Barack Obama is importing to live next door to you and me.

Greenfield explains that, “Every time the citizens of Tennessee attempted to stand up to terror immigration and the Murfreesboro Mega-Mosque , they were shouted down, smeared and lied about by the media.  A day from now, the media will have shifted the focus of the story from the murdered Marines to local Muslims whining about the backlash…”

Greenfield warns that it is not just the people who send checks to terrorist groups who deserve to be called terrorist supporters.  Those who support the importation of terrorists into this country, including Barack Obama and others in his administration, are the biggest terrorist supporters because without them most of the attacks we have suffered would not have been possible.

One wonders what would happen if fundamentalist Christians began attacking and killing Muslims in the same numbers and with the same frequency as Muslim fundamentalists attack and kill Christians, at home and abroad.  Would liberals, Democrats, and the mainstream media insist that we import more radicalized Christians?  Probably not.  As Greenfield says, “The war keeps coming home because we have filled our home with the enemy.  It’s time we clean house.”  But, short of draconian “house-cleaning” measures, we must ask ourselves this question: if there is no Morgenthau plan when the world’s non-Muslim population faces almost certain extinction, who will be there to save us?  Who will we look to?

Open Letter to Marine Corps Recruiting Command: Time to Arm our Military Recruiters

Commanding General
Marine Corps Recruiting Command
Marine Corps Base Quantico
3280 Russell Road, 2nd Floor
Quantico, Va. 22134

Dear Lieutenant General Mark Andrew Brilakis,

Many thanks for your service to our nation, I will not bloviate on how critical recruiting quality men and women is to the defense of our nation. I understand how important this is to you.

You and our U.S. Marines are at the tip of the spear. I spent over 3 years as a Special Programs/Officer Programs Recruiter in New Mexico. Our headquarters was in Phoenix, AZ. I recruited folks out of the desert, sent them to Officer Candidate School and then the U.S. Navy trained them. Many are still serving today.

In regards to the loss of life at your recruiting station in Tennessee. I send my deepest sympathies to you, the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting command and the families of Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, from Springfield, Mass., Lance Cpl. Skip “Squire” Wells, of Marietta, Ga., Sgt. Carson Holmquist, of Grantsburg Wisc. and Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, of Chattanooga.

chattanoogashooting2

Note the “Gun Free Zone” sign on the bullet riddled glass door to the Chattanooga Marine Corps. Recruiting Station office.

It was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive was eventually implemented through a regulation 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army in March 1993, two months after President Clinton assumed office.

I urge you to disregard all unconstitutional directives and regulations and arm up your men and women as the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows. These men and women are on the front line recruiting those who are willing to die for our Constitutional Republic. They too deserve and have an unalienable right to protect themselves from the likes of Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez as they go about their mission critical daily duties.

This would have helped prevent the Fort Hood shootings by Islamist ‘Soldier of Allah’ Major Nidal Hassan who was ignored by his chain-of-command out of fear of being called racist Islamophobes. It would also have prevented the June 1, 2009 attack on a Little Rock U.S. Army Recruitment Center by Carlos Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed Pvt. William “Andy” Long and severely injured Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

No more! ARM UP Sir…. lock and load.

Every single recruiting office under your command must be protected. If you get blow back I suggest you send those who disagree a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

I will copy this email to all my friends who are currently recruiters and they will arm themselves, sir. They will not be left out in the cold like turkeys while cold blooded Islamic Muslim fascists are running rampant across this nation with no fear of apprehension or prosecution from those currently sitting in the White House, the people’s house.

Write up a Commanding General Directive to arm all your recruiters immediately. Disregard all unconstitutional directives and regulations that came out of the White House under former Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.

Very respectfully,

Senior Chief Geoff Ross
Surface Warfare – Air Warfare
U.S. Navy (Retired)
Navarre, Florida

VIDEO: Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West, U.S. Army (Ret.) calls on President Obama to end “Gun-Free Zones” at Military Facilities NOW!

VIDEO: Mohammad Slaughters 4 U.S. Marines

Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez

Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez

Does anyone really think that this DEVOUT MUSLIM is frolicking in paradise with 72 virgins today?

How do our politicians and the main stream media continue to ignore the link between violent jihad and Islam?

They bend over backward to tell us there is no link!

How do they “not know the motive”?

Tom is still on special assignment, but finds the time to join us and share his insights on the Chattanooga Jihad and a few other topics.

Also, we are told by John Kerry and Susan Rice that extra money for Hezbollah does NOT mean more money for terrorist operations!

Join us, it’s good edutainment!

Chattanooga Muslim Jihad Slaughterer Worked at Nuclear Power Plant

What could possibly have gone wrong? “Chattanooga shooter worked at Perry Nuclear Power Plant; Medra Marketing,” WKYC, July 17, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — The man who opened fire at two military facilities in Chattanooga, killing four Marines and injuring three others, is Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

WKYC has confirmed that he worked and lived for a time in Northeast Ohio.

FirstEnergy confirmed to WKYC’s Investigator Tom Meyer that he also worked at Perry Nuclear Power Plant from May 20 to May 30 of 2013.

FirstEnergy said he left because he didn’t meet the minimum requirements to remain employed. He worked as a electrical engineer right outside the nuclear reactor, which they say he did not have access.

Ashley Castillo, a manager at Medra, a marketing company in Independence, said he did work for the company….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chattanooga jihad mass-murderer: Muhammad’s companions all “fought Jihad for the sake of Allah”

Homeland Security says Chattanooga shooter WAS ‘ISIS-INSPIRED,’ warns of OTHER attacks

Robert Spencer in PJM: Chattanooga Shooter Marinated in Self-Pity Over ‘Islamophobia’

In Defense of The Center for Security Policy 2015 Poll on American Muslims

On June 23, 2015 the Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the results of a survey of 600 American Muslims entitled Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad.  Three days later, the Bridge Initiative released a response to the CSP study entitled New Poll on American Muslims Is Grounded in Bias, Riddled with Flaws.  Two weeks later (July 07, 2015), the Bridge Initiative article was re-posted in the Religion section of the Huffington Post, under the title Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims.

According to the Bridge Initiative, the findings of the CSP survey, which ‘cast doubt upon American Muslims’ loyalty to their country,’ included the following three takeaway points:

  1. “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”
  2. “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”
  3. “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

In addition, the Bridge Initiative article asserted that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously,’ while citing the following four critiques:

  1. It comes from an organization with a history of producing dubious claims and “studies” about the threat of shariah, and
  2. Was administered using an unreliable methodology.
  3. Its proponents seize upon its shoddy findings, exaggerating and misrepresenting them to American audiences, and
  4. Falsely claim that the survey data represents the views of Muslims nationwide

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this article is to objectively evaluate whether the three takeaway points in the 2015 CSP survey are accurate (or not).

Note: It follows that if such an objective evaluation provides adequate proof that the three takeaway points in the CSP survey are accurate, then the Bridge Initiative’s assertions that the CSP survey ‘should not be taken seriously’ must be considered invalid (irrelevant).

Analysis Methodology

To accomplish this, I followed the premise that the most reliable approach would be to compare the findings in the 2015 CSP survey with the results of as many other similar independent surveys (and/or statistical reviews) as possible. Thus, a comprehensive search for such surveys provided the following dates and titles (all URL’s accessed July 17, 2015):

February 19, 2006       Poll Reveals 40% Of Muslims Want Shariah Law In UK

August 14, 2006          Many British Muslims Put Islam First

March 16, 2008           Why Shariah?

July 07, 2008               Iranians, Egyptians, Turks: Contrasting Views on Sharia

May 25, 2009              Public Opinion In The Islamic World On Terrorism, Al Qaeda & US Policies

August 13, 2009          New Poll Shows 78% of Pakistanis Support Death Penalty for Leaving Islam

December 02, 2010     Muslim Publics Divided on Hamas and Hezbollah

December 22, 2010     1 In 3 British Muslim Students Back Killing For Islam & 40% Want Sharia Law

August 30, 2011          Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism

November 02, 2011     62% Of Muslims In Canada Want Some Form Of Sharia

October 30, 3012         Guess Who U.S. Muslims Are Voting For?

April 30, 2013             The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

May 01, 2013              Seventy-Two Percent of Indonesian Muslims Favor Shariah Law

September 10, 2013     Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups

December 13, 2013     Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread

April 07, 2014             The Support for Sharia Law Around the World

October 14, 2014         Arab Public Opinion & The Fight Against ISIS

November 12, 2014     The Military Campaign Against The Islamic State In Iraq And The Levant

November 28, 2014     Support For ISIS Stronger In Arabic Social Media In Europe Than In Syria

March 04, 2015            Public Opinion Towards Terrorist Organizations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen & Libya

June 28, 2015               ISIS Has Up To 42 Million Supporters in the Arab World

Results

After a careful review and comparison of these 21 published surveys with the 2015 CSP survey’s three takeaway points, we arrive at the following conclusions:

1.  “A majority (51%) agreed that ‘Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.’”

Overall, an average of at least 64% of Muslims in more than 50 countries worldwide would prefer to be governed by shariah law.  At 51%, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

2.  “Nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, ‘It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.’”

Overall, more than 20% of Muslims around the world support the use of violence to defend Islam from its enemies. In some parts of the Islamic world, this number is consistently higher than 20%.  However, as with Point [1], the American Muslim community falls well within the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

3.  “Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.”

The use of violence [Jihad] to make shariah the law of the land is the stated goal of groups such as Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, & etc., as well as the Quran itself (i.e., see 2.191-193 & 8.59-60).  Support for these Islamist groups varies from a low of 13% to a high of 52%, depending on the particular group and/or country in question.  Once again, as with the two points above, the American Muslim community falls right in the middle of the spectrum of global Islamic opinion.

Conclusion

An analysis of 21 surveys conducted over a 10-year period reveals that the spectrum of opinions within the American Muslim community on shariah law and the use of violence either to punish the enemies of Islam, or to make shariah the law of the land, are exactly the same as the spectrum of opinions held by Muslims in the rest of the world.  Muslims in America are not an anomaly within the greater Islamic community (Ummah), nor do they depart significantly from the beliefs on shariah and/or Jihad that are held by Muslims in the rest of the Islamic world.  In other words, the CSP survey not only represents the views of Muslims nationwide, but globally as well.

Rather than habitually recycling ad hominem attacks against their opponents, while emphatically asserting that the results of the 2015 CSP survey were ‘riddled with flaws,’ the Bridge Initiative should:

  1. Provide an acceptable working definition of Shariah law (which dictates every aspect of an observant Muslim’s moral life),
  2. Conduct their own statistically valid survey, based on this acceptable working definition, and then
  3. Publish the results for the world to see.

Perhaps then, we could begin to build trust, and reduce some of the ‘generalizations about American Muslims ricocheting across the Internet and social media.’  Perhaps then, we could also begin dispelling some of the ‘misunderstanding of Islam’ among the poorly informed and non-equipped general public…that we hear about, so often, and so loudly.

Meanwhile, rather than ignoring an extensive 10-year archive of surveys documenting historical trends within the global Islamic community – trends that fully support the results of the 2015 CSP survey – it seems reasonable that we should expect a much higher level of scholastic integrity from such a prominent and well-endowed institution as the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  As per its stated purpose, an improvement in professional integrity would be a much more effective way to build bridges, ‘improve relations’ and ‘enhance understanding of Muslims in the West.’

VIDEO: An Israeli Analysis of the Iran Nuke Deal

We are joined by the editor in chief of Israeli Homeland Security, Arie Egozi and Jerusalem Post journalist, Dr. Martin Sherman.

We discuss the implications of the Iranian nuclear deal in regard to Israel, and they are not good. How Iran’s financial windfall will allow Hezbollah to get more and better weaponry to attack Israel from the north, to funding HAMAS terrorism in south.

Why would America put its’ only true ally in the Middle-East in such danger? Why would America negotiate a deal perceived as weak by many in the left-wing media? Are John Kerry & Barry from Hawaii TRAITORS to the country they are charged with defending?

Join us for the analysis and opinions of two Israeli military and political insiders!