Posts

A Biblical Solution to the Omnibus-Muslim Problem

The Omnibus Budget Bill to be voted Friday, Dec 11, will provide $1.2 Billion for “nearly 700,000 green cards – or lifetime residency cards – to migrants from Muslim nations over the next five years (as we did over the last five years),” said Senator Sessions of AL, re Friday’s vote. Readers should email congressman.

The Muslim problem is about militancy as taught in the Koran. Christ said, “Blessed are the peace-makers.” The Bible covenant with Abraham provided the Middle East for his descendants. That includes Arabic Muslims from Ishmael. Islam’s push into Europe and America is foreseen in Daniel 8, but it ends badly for a militant Muslim ram.

First the Problem from a 2002 UN Report: “More books are translated into Spanish in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand, suggesting at the very minimum an extraordinarily closed world.” Mark Steyn.

The PROBLEM is complex; leaders and media can’t seem to identify it. Maybe we could help them?

The Shoe Bomber. the Beltway Snipers, the Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim. The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim. The Underwear Bomber, the U.S.S. Cole Bombers, the 9-11 Hijackers and now the San Bernardino Terrorists–ALL OF THESE (and many edited from this list) WERE MUSLIMS!

More innocent people died on 9-11 than died in Pearl Harbor. We declared war then, but not now; not on Muslims, but we need to declare war on militancy as taught by numerous quotes in the Koran such as, “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123.

For hundreds of years, it has been no problem for Hindus to live with Buddhists, Jews or Christians.

Atheists have lived with Buddhists, Jews or Confucians, Christians have lived with Jews, Hindus and Shintos—these religions don’t have a problem being neighbors.

But Muslims have a problem living with Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Atheists, and worst of all, MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS IS A BIG PROBLEM!

MUSLIMS don’t want to live in Muslim countries of Gaza, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Kenya or Sudan.

They want to be in Australia, England, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway, India, Canada, USA—any country that is not Islamic; why is that if it’s a “religion of peace?

When trouble comes, who do they blame? Not their leader. Not themselves, they blame the country and want to change it to be like the countries they left!

Islam likes organizations: Islamic Jihad: an ISLAMIC terror organization, ISIS/ISIL an ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION; Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine Liberation Front. ALL of these and many more are ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATIONS.

Are we so stupid that we can’t figure out how to deal with the problem? At least President Obama and now Attorney General Lynch know it’s not the Muslims and to speak against them may soon be a CRIME! This isn’t “hate speech.” We shouldn’t hate anyone; Christ died for all. We should end our “Stupid problems” with Free Speech while we still have it.

Obama admitted being Muslim and he wants to flood US with Muslim “refugees” Now we come to the biblical solution:

God promised to give Abraham the land between Egypt and the Euphrates River for his descendants in the 15th chapter of Genesis. Five verses later, Abraham agrees with Sarah to have a son by Hagar. The Arab nations are descendants of Ishmael, and they should occupy the area in the covenant for Abraham’s “seed.”

Any other plan, like the pope’s encouragement for Germany to take a million refugees while the Vatican takes two families, [isn’t that interesting?] is against the provision that God made for Abraham’s descendants. When leaders become part of a stupid problem, we need to go back to basics. Dan88

The Bible shows the problem of Muslim militancy will soon be solved “at the time of the end.” A militant Muslim ram gets stomped by a GOAT [Global Organization Against Terror] that flies from the west in Daniel 8 (the book Christ recommended when asked about end-times.)

Leaders should consider the Bible solution, rather than “wait and see”–hoping for an answer in the election next November. Congress has proven they go along to get along with hidden forces and rewards while voting against the Constitution that made us great.

The answer for everyone reading this is to Google their congressman and send him an email SAYING “I WILL CAMPAIGN AGAINST YOU IF YOU DON’T SAY NO TO OMNIBUS DEC 11.” Leaving a message by phone doesn’t work–“mailbox is full.”

IF WE DON’T ACT, WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE, AS PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED ON HIS ELECTION NIGHT: “CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA!”

 

POLL: Trump Strongest Candidate on Fighting Terrorism

SAINT LEO, FL /PRNewswire/ — A new survey of more than 1000 adults from the Saint Leo University Polling Institute puts terrorism as the second-leading issue America faces. Americans are also personally concerned about attending large public events and about the adequacy of security measures generally.

When asked “what do you think is the most important issue facing the country today?”

  • The response “jobs and the economy” continued to hold the top spot, but the response level declined to 25.8 percent, compared to 32.4 percent in October. Meanwhile, the generalized response “terrorism” shot up more than 10 percentage points to 16.9 percent from 5.6 percent in October 2015, putting the issue in second place. The third-place issue was “homeland security and anti-terror policy,” at 15.1 percent, compared to 4.5 percent in October.

When respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or were unsure about policies and opinions in the news, these findings emerged:

  • More than three-quarters, at 78.2 percent, strongly or somewhat agree that “It is likely ISIS terrorists are hiding among Syrian and other refugees in order to enter Europe and the United States.”
  • Two-thirds, at 66.9, percent agree strongly or somewhat with “a pause in accepting Syrian refugees intothe United States until additional FBI background checks and approvals are added to the current screening process.”
  • Half, at 51.1 percent, disagree strongly or somewhat that “the U.S. and Americans have an obligation to accept Syrian refugees.” The cumulative percent of those who agree with the notion of an obligation was 39 percent.
  • Just over half, at 52.5 percent, disagree somewhat or strongly that “I trust our federal government’s ability to accurately verify entering refugees are not terrorists.” Fewer than four in 10, or 36.4 percent, reported agreement with the trust statement.
  • Those who agree somewhat or strongly that they are “concerned about terrorism when attending large public events” were reported at 61.8 percent.
  • Nearly half—48.3 percent—somewhat or strongly agree that “Russia’s President (Vladimir) Putin is stronger on fighting terrorism than President Obama.

When respondents were asked which current presidential candidate—despite personal preference—”would likely mount the strongest and most effective effort against terrorists worldwide while protecting Americans at home” they said, in descending order:

  • Donald Trump, 24.1 percent
  • Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 20.7 percent
  • U.S. Senator (VT) Bernie Sanders, 7.7 percent
  • U.S. Senator (TX) Ted Cruz, 5.5 percent
  • Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, 4.7 percent
  • Dr. Ben Carson, 4.4 percent

The poll was conducted by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute and has a +/- 3.0 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level on a composite basis.  The national online poll of more than 1,000 adults was conducted by the Saint Leo University Polling Institute between November 29 and December 3.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to U.S. During Hostage Crisis

America’s Muslims object to Obama’s push for more self-surveillance

Hamas Complains About Donald Trump’s Immigration Policy

Put “Refugees” in FEMA Camps

Roanoke, Virginia, mayor David Bowers has just created a stir by suggesting that Syrian migrants be placed in internment camps. I found his comments interesting because, if we are going to have the Muslim so-called “refugees,” I also consider placement in camps a must.

Unfortunately, Bowers, a Democrat, undermined the position by drawing the poor analogy with fellow Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s interning of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII (note: some Americans of German and Italian descent were also interned). George Takei, famous for playing Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek series and for, more recently, boldly going where no space traveler had gone before, was quick to chime in. As he wrote on Facebook, “The internment (not a ‘sequester’) was not of Japanese ‘foreign nationals,’ but of Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.” Most of Takei’s other commentary is nonsense, mostly because he equates a low-crime, mostly American-citizen population with unknown-quantity individuals of the demographic responsible for virtually all the world’s terrorism.

It’s also nonsense because we have no legal obligation to accept foreigners of any kind if it’s contrary to our national interests. And I oppose — completely and without reservation — accepting any Muslim migrants whatsoever. I do believe we should help the persecuted Mideast Christians, although, even in their case, the aid should meet certain criteria. If we are going to accept migrants, however, it is imperative they be placed in some of the many FEMA camps our government has been spending good tax money building in recent years. Note that camp placement is precisely what Turkey does with the migrants.

Before elaborating further on this, the migrant issue must be properly defined. Reports tell us that 75 or 80 percent of the migrants are military-age males in generally good health; this relative absence of women and children belies the notion that these are desperate people fleeing for their lives. Moreover, there’s much reason to fear that these migrants are, as Donald Trump has put it, a “Trojan horse” for terrorist infiltration.

First consider that Syria’s ambassador to India, Riad Abbas, has warned that more than 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe may have ties to ISIS-linked groups. As he put it, reports Sputnik, “Among the refugees, who went to Europe, maybe more than 20 percent belong to ISIL groups. Now Europe has received bad element[s] into their ground. They will face further problem[s] in future.”

Then consider Dr. Mudar Zahran, a Muslim asylum seeker and leader of the Jordanian opposition residing in the U.K. On an October segment of “The Glazov Gang” he warned that Europe should not accept the Muslim migrants, as they were ushering in the “Islamic conquest of the West.” Furthermore, he stated that 75 percent of the migrants were not even Syrian and then said that

75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]; actually, the ones in disaster areas cannot … leave. So, actually, as much as there’s a disaster in Syria, most of those people arriving do in fact do not need the protection; they arrive from Turkey, they arrive from Jordan, they arrive from other places which are safe. In addition, those people are … bypassing poor European countries; they’re going to Turkey, Hungary, and other places like Bulgaria and settling in Germany, where there is a rich nation with a generous welfare system.

He also characterizes the migration as the fulfillment of “the Islamic … dreams of fascism of some” and says that what Muslims “couldn’t do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free — and even paying for it.” In addition, Zahran delivered this shocking news about the “invasion”: “I have to be honest,” he said, “you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

There’s still more. According to American Thinker’s Sierra Rayne, a Pew Research Center poll indicates there may be three-hundred million ISIS supporters in the Muslim world. What this means is that if we accept unvetted Muslim migrants, one out of six could be supporters of a group that that crucifies Christians, kills children, drowns people in cages and sets them on fire.

And unvetted they will be. Despite Obama administration assurances that our authorities have cracker-jack screening procedures, the thorough databases necessary for vetting simply do not exist, as this article well illustrates.

Even if they did, though, vetting has a fundamental flaw: It only tells you about people’s past.

Not their future.

(Vetting can’t read minds, and people can change, as I explained here.)

And terrorist acts of concern occur in the future.

Of course, people could disagree with the aforementioned numbers; they may even believe Obama’s claims about vetting. Yet there’s a more basic problem, one almost universally ignored and whose solution is irrefutable within reason’s realm. Let’s assume that the migrants in question truly are refugees.

Well, they belong in refugee camps.

Why on Earth are we giving them the “keys to the city” and dispersing these unknown quantities in towns around the nation? This is at best criminal negligence — at worst treason.

Note that providing camps is what most nations do. Our camps would be humane; the refugees would have quality food and drink and adequate shelter. But remember that granting safe haven is a favor, and there’s a difference between charitable saviors and schlemiels on wheels.

A reason we depart from this sane solution brings us to a second universally ignored problem. As I pointed out recently, if a desperate person came through your area, you might feed him, provide some clothing and even house him for a while.

You don’t generally make him part of your family and let him share in decisions influencing your loved ones’ fortunes and future. The point?

We have conflated refugee status with citizenship, when the two should have nothing whatsoever do to with each other. Providing safe haven is one thing, but when the threat in the stranger’s native land recedes, he should return.

Why have we departed from this sanity? Obviously, people today don’t like the sound of “camps” (so call them “ObamaCare Refugee Exchanges”). But there’s another reason:

Obama and his co-conspirators don’t care about these migrants. Oh, they very much want them to live…in America. Because only then can they become part of a growing demographic that votes 70 to 90 percent for socialistic Democrats. Only then can they be used to further balkanize our nation. Only then can the “fundamental transformation” of our country be accelerated.

As to this, I reported in March on an alleged Obama administration plan to use foreigners as “seedlings” who will “navigate, not assimilate” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows” (more details here). And, of course, you can’t seed communities throughout the nation if you keep your seed in camps.

But if you want to diminish the sense of nationhood and thus the desire to maintain sovereignty, and dilute traditionalist, red-state will and thus negate nullification movements and turn sanity blue, “seeding” via amnesty and “refugee resettlement” is the way to do it. Once the ice is broken and a foreign population is established in an area, family members and others come — and all of them will outbreed the natives.

If certain people truly are refugees, FEMA camps can provide the refuge. After all, if the camps aren’t good enough for them, then what lowly creatures were they built for, anyway?

EDITORS NOTE: Please contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Muslim migrant infectious diseases more deadly than terrorism?

Those refugees with latent tuberculosis are admitted to the U.S. and some who are being treated for active tuberculosis may also gain entry.

We have an entire category here at RRW on refugee and immigrant health (286 previous posts!) and I’ve maintained for years that health problems coming into the US with refugees and the cost of treating the myriad diseases and chronic conditions could ultimately be more significant to your community than a terrorist attack might be.

TB photo

That said, here is an informative article (hat tip: Joanne) from The Journal of Family Practice a few years ago which goes over the issues facing the medical community as we ‘welcome’ over 100,000 refugees and asylum seekers to America each year.

Pay special attention to the sections on Tuberculosis and HIV (there is no longer a bar to admission for HIV/AIDS and refugees are no longer even tested for it in advance of admission).  Other big medical issues include intestinal parasites and hepatitis.  And, of course mental health.

In 2012 we posted a film describing how refugees with active TB were being prepared for entry into the U.S., here.

Here is how the Journal of Family Practice article opens:

Refugees arrive in the United States with complex medical issues, including illnesses rarely seen here, mental health concerns, and chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.

I encourage all of you working in ‘pockets of resistance’ to be sure to do your homework on health issues, including mental health issues.  According to Anastasia Brown of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, 75% of Iraqis entering the US have mental illness. See Journal of Migration and Human Security report, here.

The Centers for Disease Control also has important information on its website, here.

And, in the past we have noted that both Texas and Minnesota health departments have lots of good information about refugee health on their websites, and I expect some other states do as well.  If your state health department does not report on refugee medical problems that is something you should be advocating for where you live.

Again, see our ‘Health issues’ category by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Arabs in Dearborn support governor’s decision to curtail Syrian refugee resettlement

Canadian Liberal government announce how they will bring in 25,000 Syrians in next 6 weeks

Almost 15,000 Burmese Muslims brought to U.S. in last ten years

Hillary: Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism”

How will President Hillary Clinton have the slightest chance of defeating the Islamic State when she is so divorced from reality as to say something like this?

“Hillary: Muslims ‘Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism,’” by Guy Benson, Townhall, November 20, 2015:

Behold, the woman who shall soon be crowned Queen of the endlessly self-righteous and self-congratulatory “Reality Based Community:”

Clinton Muslims Nothing To Do with Terrorism

This is pure claptrap. Everyone understands that the West is not at war with Islam broadly, and that an overwhelming percentage of Muslims reject violent extremism. It’s been beaten into our heads by politicians of all stripes since 9/11, and we’re generally bright enough to draw the relevant distinction: “These Muslims over here are just peaceful, faithful people living their lives, whereas those Muslims over there are radical and seek to impose a toxic strain of their faith via terror and violence. We have no quarrel with the former group, which thankfully represents the large majority; the latter group must be confronted and defeated.” This dynamic isn’t hard. It can be quickly and easily explained, yet we are constantly bombarded with dumb, sanitized denialism like Hillary’s second sentence above. Instead of treating us like adults, we’re infantilized. And to what end? Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, we’re instructed, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. This last bit is insultingly preposterous. Some Muslims have quite a lot to do with terrorism, actually. Like the ones who were led by their hardcore theology to kill 3,000 people on 9/11. Or blow up trains in Spain. Or target London’s public transit system with bombs. Or slaughter students at a Kenyan university. Or Devastate a nightclub in Indonesia. Or shoot up a shopping mall in Nairobi. Or lay siege to a hotel in Mumbai. Or terrorize Nigerian schoolgirls. Or, you know, take hostages in Mali. I could go on for some time. But those aren’t real Muslims, our Thought Leaders inform us. Islamists loudly beg to differ — and wouldn’t they know a lot more about their motives and religious teachings than Western purveyors of bumper sticker feel-goodery? Try this: Ask someone who’s convinced jihadists shouldn’t be considered Muslims whether or not Osama bin Laden’s corpse should have been discarded with no regard for Islamic traditions. Or whether the terrorists at Gitmo should be deprived of prayer mats, or Halal meals, or Korans. Maybe some enterprising reporter will ask Hillary these questions someday. In any case, the “nothing to do with terrorism” line is plainly nonsense. The more difficult part is the “peaceful and tolerant” phrase. It’s absolutely true that a huge preponderance of Muslims worldwide abhor and reject religious violence. But as I explored in a piece after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there is a worrisomely sizable strain of abject illiberalism that runs through mainstream Islam. Data from Pew, a respected global pollster, gathered two years ago:

Pew death penalty for apostasy

Shall we count the 86 percent of Egyptian Muslims, or 62 percent of Malaysian Muslims, or the 17 percent of Turkish Muslims who believe leaving Islam is punishable by death among the “tolerant”? Do the millions of Muslims who express support for suicide bombings against civilians “in defense of Islam” qualify as “peaceful”? Or mustn’t we ask such questions when there’s a vapid slogan to be spouted, or a politically-correct tweet to be disseminated? The concern, of course, is that leaders who are unable or unwilling to comprehend and properly identify a threat will be ineffective in neutralizing it. Hillary’s defenders will say that President Bush also refrained from directly naming the enemy. True, but the current administration of which Mrs. Clinton was a part has taken euphemism-deployment to another level….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah homework: make propaganda poster for terror group

UK: Muslims attack convert from Islam to Christianity with pickaxe

Is the United States REALLY going to do this even though history says we should not?

There is a great amount of rhetoric floating around over the Syrian Refugees due to the terrorist attacks in Paris last week. The questions being asked are should the United States take them in?  Should we block them?  Should we pay to keep them where they currently are?  Should we make sure our European allies keep taking them in?

The people of the nation’s of Europe already knew the trouble that they were in because they understood the danger that was around them. German citizens have been marching and protesting about the continued open border policy of Merkel.  The Swedish people are demanding that their government begin sending many of the Middle Eastern Refugees and Immigrants back to where they came from. Hungary along with other Eastern European nations are building border fencing to keep the migrants, immigrants and refugees at bay.

But still most European politicians as well as the politicians here in the United States, seem to think that they need, no, they must accept these refugees as a show of good will and to extend the hand of friendship to the Middle East. Paris proved to us that there is no extending a hand of friendship.  There is no way to convince the Islamist to lay down their weapons and live in peace because they are not taught or raised in such a fashion.

The Islamist hates the West and the East and everything we stand for and believe in.  They have sworn to destroy and defeat everything we hold dear in the name of their god, Allah. The French government has begun to see this issue in its true light because French President Hollande closed his countries open borders after the recent Paris terror attack.  But, alas, it may be too late.

Unfortunately, the United States is following the same road that France and much of Europe has already taken. For example, The Boston Marathon Bombers were just two of many such refugees that have been caught committing or planning to commit such violence against Americans on American soil yet The United States still wants to welcome The Syrian Refugees.

Only a nation that has a death wish would allow their arrogance to supersede their wisdom because the greatest of nations often are not defeated by their enemies from the outside. A nation is often defeated or doomed when they let the enemy inside in the guise of friendship.

The Trojan horse is more than a historical fact because it is a warning that time and time again, men have failed to remember.  Do we really wish to go down that road of self-destruction or will be wise and learn from the mistakes of the pass and set aside our feelings for logic and fact?

If we as a people choose unwisely, then you cannot blame those of us who have been shouting from the mountain top that letting in the enemy is not a wise thing to do. It is not un-American nor is it anti-Christian to refuse to take in those who you believe will someday turn on you and kill you or your fellow citizens.

Frankly, I will not be remembered by history as one of those who destroyed the United States simply because he was ignorant and foolish.

How about you?

RELATED VIDEO: Syrians in Greece Using Fake Passports to get to Europe and U.S. In this Project Veritas video three Syrian refugees in Greece are caught on hidden camera talking about using fake passports to get to Europe and the U.S. They talk about using the same route as one of the terrorists who perpetrated the attack in Paris last week. When asked how to obtain a fake passport one of the Syrian refugees responded: “You need a person who the made the fake passport. And you need to pay for it. Maybe about three thousand Euro. ($3,189).” He also added that that is how a lot of Syrians come to the U.S. and that there are a lot of Syrians in France.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What a Responsible Syrian Refugee Policy Looks Like for US After Paris Attacks

GOP Lawmakers Prepare to Order ‘Pause’ to Syrian Refugees Entering U.S.

After Paris Attacks, It’s Clear France Has Paid High Price for Abandoning Assimilation

Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan Illegally Entering Arizona via Mexico

The Southern Arizona Border remains an attractive route for smugglers, drugs, Syrian, and other Middle Eastern illegals coming into America.  Mentioned below are the latest interdiction of highly questionable and concerning illegals.

FBI CONFIRMS: 6 Men from Pakistan, Afghanistan Busted Illegally Entering Arizona from Mexico

by Bob Price and Brandon Darby

UPDATE: After the publication of this article, a local NBC affiliate contacted the FBI for confirmation. The FBI confirmed that the six men were apprehended after illegally entering the United States in Arizona.

Original article:

A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.

The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.

The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.

Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.

Read more.

Do You Really Believe there are Moderate Muslims?

If I have said it once, I have stated it a thousand times even on my syndicated radio commentary The Edwards Notebook that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.  For a number of years Muslims have been portrayed by well-meaning or politically motivated progressives as either Muslim moderates or radical Muslim terrorists.  Unfortunately, such classifications have helped to dupe so-many into believing that most Muslims are simply the same as everyone else.  That they simply want to live a good and decent life without any thoughts of killing non-Muslims per instructions in the quran.’

The world manufactured the silly notion of two Islams.  One that is radical and impossible to live with, and the other moderate and not much different from fellow Americans like you and I.  The false narrative distinguishing a difference between “radical” and “moderate” is what facilitated the stupid rumor that Islam had been “hijacked” by the radicals.  The implication is that the real Islam is moderate and that the radicalized version of today is a fake.

This is one of the reasons why American & European school students are consistently indoctrinated in the traditions of various aspects of Islam, including sharia law.  It has been noted that what is taught to one generation dictates the direction that nation takes in the next.  Thus the explanation for the insane for the irrational government decisions throughout both the United States and Europe.

The United States is saddled with a president who is more inclined to aid dedicated murdering Muslims than protect American interests.  European nations like Great Britain and France are besieged daily with brutish Islamic bullies who are zeroed in on a mission of fundamentally changing their nations into typical uncivilized Muslim societies.  The horrific murders of unarmed Parisians by Muslims who are emboldened by the west’s silly penchant for trying to make nice with the Islamists who long ago declared war on non-Muslim nations, particularly, the United States.

Despite the fact that back in January of 2014, ISIS leader Abu Bakr ‘al Baghdidi flatly stated his groups intention to march on Baghdad and into direct confrontation with the Americans. “Our last message to the) Americans, soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day.” Baghdadi said.  “So watch, for we are with you, watching.”

But instead of acting on behalf of U.S. interests, the White House Occupier continues to govern on behalf of Muslim interests and remains keen on the idea of allowing hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslim so-called refugees to move into our republic, all expenses paid by United States taxpayers.  Obama’s willingness to endanger our nation by flooding her with Muslim enemies is jaw dropping.  Also, the cruel similarities between Islam and Nazism are startling.  The Nazis believed they were a master race.  Islam (also a political movement) is considered by Islamists to be a master religion.  When one considers so-called moderate Muslims, just remember, things are not always what they seem.

Most people known as moderate Muslims are those simply waiting until the overall Muslim population is at least around eight percent of the overall population of the country, or city they migrate to.  After that they start getting involved politically via the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic organizations and use the judicial system of their chosen nation or city to further the political clout of Muslims at the expense of the native citizens where the immigrated to.  Soon after, violent acts begin to occur.  Numerous cities in Great Britain, France and even Televiv Israel are peppered with Muslim stabbings of non-Muslims and boisterous calls for the collapse of the nation, or city they have invaded.

The results of foolishly opening up borders to Islamic invaders are playing out all over the world.  Hopefully, before it’s much too late, the wisdom of God will be pursued and utilized so that civilization may prevail so that sovereign nations like the United States will awaken from their stupor and properly seal their borders.

To place the interests of enemies who have warned us about their plans to destroy our republic above our own by letting them stream through our porous border is both dishonorable and traitorous.  America is divided between those who desire to stay the course of open borders and endless streams of American hating refugees being let in on one side.  On the other is a slightly larger majority who are praying for the restoration of an appreciation for and protection of our beloved republic.  It can start with the sealing of our borders against illegal immigration.  It is also imperative that the government or even Americans in general realize that we do not have the time and it is not our responsibility to sort through legions of illegal immigrants who are streaming across our borders to see who is naughty or nice.

The wise and most prudent approach is to not allow then in American in the first place.  The reason is because most of us do not desire to witness a wholesale fundamental change of America.  Unless of course it is a dramatic change into living up to the marvelous ideals that the founding fathers so eloquently wrote and then fought to establish.  Together, “We the People” of the United States of America can reestablish our beloved republic as One Nation under God.  Or settle for being the generation that let her become one nation gone under.  The choice is up to us.  I pray we make the right one.

Al Qaeda operatives entered U.S. via refugee program

But relax: Obama says the refugees are no more threatening than tourists.

“Report: al Qaeda Terrorists Entered United States Through Refugee Program,” by Ali Meyer, Washington Free Beacon, November 18, 2015:

Two al Qaeda terrorists who had killed American soldiers were able to enter the country as refugees, according to a report released Wednesday from the House Homeland Security committee.

Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two Iraqi refugees settled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, after killing American soldiers, whom they bragged about having “for lunch and dinner.” In 2010, they were caught handling weapons, including included a machine gun and a missile launcher, that they planned to smuggle to insurgents in Iraq.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there were many more than that,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. “And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me.”

The committee’s report found that the administration’s refugee resettlement program proposal will have “a limited impact on alleviating the overall crisis but could have serious ramifications for U.S. homeland security.”

Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, admitted in October at a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee that organizations such as the Islamic State might attempt to exploit the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

“It is true that we are not going to know a whole lot about the Syrians that come forth in this process,” he said.

President Obama’s refugee resettlement program is now under scrutiny after deadly terrorist attacks in Paris killed more than 120 people and left more than 300 injured on Friday. It is suspected that one of the terrorists entered the country as a refugee.

In addition to these attacks, men in Minnesota were apprehended by the feds for trying to join the Islamic State. There is growing concern that the state would be a recruiting ground for the Islamic State because of its large community of Somali refugees.

The report was released after a nearly year-long investigation evaluating challenges with allowing Syrian refugee flows into the United States.

Governors from many states are now refusing to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in their states.

“Given the tragic attacks in Paris and the threats we have already seen, Texas cannot participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees—any one of whom could be connected to terrorism—being resettled in Texas,” said Gov. Greg Abbott.

“There is an undeniable connection between our refugee resettlement program and the increased risk of a terror attack within the United States,” said Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“There have been roughly 70 terrorist plots in the United States since 9/11 and scores of young people who are first or second generation refugees and immigrants who have become involved in some way with Islamist jihadists, either by undertaking attacks here or traveling overseas to join a terrorist group, or both,” she said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Italy: Muslim pupils refuse to observe minute of silence for Paris victims

Rome’s Prefect: Muslims “first victims” of Paris jihad attacks

Vetting Needed to Separate Friend from Foe Among Refugees

The Obama Administration is adamant the 10,000 Syrian refugees it plans to resettle in the U.S. are subject to a tough vetting process. The process is tough and long, but a poll in 2014 found that 13 percent have positive feelings towards ISIS. An ideological vetting process that can separate Islamist from non-Islamist is needed to separate valuable friends from deadly foes.

The vetting process should not just rely on criminal records and databases used to detect terrorists and their associates. Because the threat is ideological in nature, it is very possible we could allow in someone with a radical outlook but has yet to establish the kind of operational connections that would show up in a database.

A new bipartisan congressional terrorism report found there isn’t a global comprehensive database of foreign jihadists who have gone to Syria to fight. It says the U.S. doesn’t even have a national strategy against terrorist travel and “information about foreign fighters is crossing borders less quickly than the extremists themselves.” There’s also the serious problem that there is a more general lack of intelligence about Syria.

Watch Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro and retired INS agent Michael Cutler, who gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission, discuss the vetting process for Syrian refugees:

The U.S. has a vetting process of 18 to 24 months. About 1,800 have come to the U.S. in the past two years and a little bit more than half passed the vetting. Names are checked against databases and there’s an interviewing process to make sure there isn’t information linking them to terrorist or criminal activity and that the biography they provided is truthful.

No news reports or explanations by the administration indicate the process includes evaluating the outlook of the applicant to find signs of Islamist sympathies, anti-American views or other forms of extremism like anti-Semitism.

An ideology-based screening process separating Islamists from non-Islamists (as opposed to simply terrorist from non-terrorist) minimizes the chances of a radical getting through and maximizes the chances of identifying an ally to work with. It is not in our interest or in the Syrians’ interest for an Islamist to take a moderate’s place in line.

By failing to identify anti-Islamist friends among the Syrian refugees, we are hurting our cause and losing a chance to undermine the Islamist extremist cause. For example, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, is a powerful voice against Islamism. He is in the U.S. doing his work because his parents sought refuge in America from the Assad regime.

The U.S. needs Muslim activists like Jasser. We need fluent Arabic speakers and those who understand that part of the world. We need voices who can speak first-hand about the horrors of ISIS, other Syrian Islamists and the Iran-backed Assad dictatorship. We need Muslims who are on the lookout for extremism and will not hesitate to report it and even keep tabs on it. These are roles that Syrian refugees who oppose Islamism can help fill.

The debate over the administration’s desire to bring 10,000 refugees into America is fierce and contentious, but a middle ground exists between an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees and trusting the current plan.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three Reactions ISIS is Hoping We Will Have

32 Killed in Nigeria in Suspected Boko Haram Attack

Europe on High Alert as Police Kill Terror Suspects in Paris

Paris: Radicalizing the Next Generation of Muslim Youth

1,070 Iraqis admitted to U.S. since October 1st — 85% are Muslim

Since my two previous posts are so popular—the first is on Syrians admitted to the U.S. in FY 2016 (which began on Oct. 1) and the second on Somalis admitted in those same 6 weeks, I thought you might like to know about the Iraqis who have been coming into the US (over 100,000 since Obama took office. Here is one summary through 2013 and a large portion of 2014. I’ll get more complete numbers later).

My Somali post made it to Drudge!  What an honor!

This is where the 1,070 have gone in the last six weeks.  Top five Iraqi resettlement states so far this year are: Texas, California, Michigan, Washington and Colorado.

map Iraqis first six weeks

And here is how their religions break down (directly from the Refugee Processing Center data base, these are their categories and spelling):

Atheist:  3

Catholic: 69

Christian: 24

Moslem:  44

Moslem Shiite: 427

Moslem Suni: 435

Orthodox: 20

Yazidi: 40

Interesting isn’t it!  When you see almost equal numbers of Shiites and Sunis don’t you wonder why we are bringing in both sides of the warring factions?

Supposedly the bill being supported by Speaker Paul Ryan that seeks to get administration assurance that no terrorists are getting in through the refugee stream to America only involves Syrians and Iraqis.  What about Somalis?  And, isn’t it a bit late considering we have admitted over 100,000 Somalis and over 100,000 Iraqis to live in your towns and cities?

Anyone want to write a book on the Iraqi resettlement, we have 673 previous posts going back 8 years on that resettlement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Babin Bill to suspend Refugee Admissions Program has 74 co-sponsors as they get on board after Paris

France 24: Eight suspected terrorists arrested in Turkey posing as “refugees”

White House secret: Governors (even Democrat govs) can’t find out where refugees are being resettled

WND: Ryan plotting ‘meaningless show-vote’ on refugees

Why Muslim Migrants Always = Terrorism

What’s the point in the West sending troops to the Middle East if we bring the Middle East to the West? The preceding is a money line, one that should be used by Islam realists from Germany to Georgia.

The Paris terror attack has inspired much debate, from conservatives saying we need to confront ISIS aggressively overseas to liberals wringing their hands over rising anti-Islam sentiment that they claim will exacerbate the jihadist problem. And while I’m more sympathetic to the former sentiment than the latter, nothing should distract us from what must be our number-one priority: stopping the Muslim influx into the West cold.

Many say this is a cold position. And, unfortunately, their prescription for (misguided) compassion is seldom sufficiently refuted.

In an attempt to salvage a failing multicultural model and strategy for importing left-leaning voters, we hear that the Muslim migrants must be “vetted” better. A practical problem with this notion is that Syria’s and other Middle Eastern countries’ databases are woefully inadequate, making accurate information on many migrants impossible to obtain. This confronts us with a simple matter of probability: if 1 million migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of 1 percent are terrorists, that’s 1000 dangerous jihadists. Is this acceptable? Note that my estimate may be conservative.

Yet there’s also a fundamental problem with vetting that goes unmentioned: even with complete information, it only tells you about the past.

It cannot tell you about the future.

In other words, even if those one million migrants have “clean records,” how many will become terrorists in the future? Again, 1/10th of 1 percent is 1000.

And what of their children? How many of them will become terrorists? No point repeating best-case-scenario percentages.

One response here is that the children will be more integrated and thus the problem should diminish over time. This is logical, but, unfortunately, also apparently untrue.

Studies have shown that young Muslims in Europe are actually more radical than their elders. This certainly is counterintuitive, but only because the average Westerner’s cranial database also doesn’t contain accurate information. For example and related to this, moderns take as a given that religion is declining in our “enlightened times.” Yet religious belief is actually increasing worldwide, a phenomenon poised to continue. Islam’s adherents are growing in number, and Catholicism’s are, too, slightly in excess of the increase in world population. Religious belief is only declining in the West — and, most significantly, among Westerners in the West.

Another common argument was expressed by Charles Grant, director of pro-E.U. think-tank Centre for European Reform. He said that ratcheting up the anti-Islamic rhetoric would serve ISIS’ ends and that “Europe’s game must be to resist that and not repeat the mistakes we made after September 11 which played right into al-Qaeda’s hands. We must hold our nerve and embrace our values of tolerance of faith and religions which we share in common and against the Islamic State,” reported the Telegraph. Many leftists echo this, the idea being that we must not further “alienate” Muslim communities. This overlooks that you can only alienate those who aren’t already alien.

Note again that the pattern evident is for younger Muslim generations to become more alienated from the West, not less. Some would blame this on the West itself, saying that — despite indulging multiculturalism, outlawing anti-Muslim rhetoric and offering generous government benefits — we still aren’t opening our arms and hearts to these newcomers. Kill ‘em with kindness, the thinking (feeling?) goes.

Of such people ask a simple question: can you cite one time in history in which large numbers of Muslims have willingly assimilated into a non-Muslim culture?

Just one?

While there may be some exception, I can’t think of any. Note here a recent poll showing that a slim majority of U.S. Muslims prefer living under Sharia law to American civil law (and how many wouldn’t admit such a thing to pollsters?). The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the historical record informs that “Muslim assimilation” is a contradiction in terms.

In fact, I don’t know of even one instance in which large numbers of Muslims were ever shaken from Islam other than by the sword, and that wasn’t done very much, if at all. There was an attempt by a group of medieval Christian missionaries to peacefully convert Middle Eastern Muslims, but the effort was found futile and abandoned after a short time.

Then there’s the myth of “assimilation.” The term is thrown around thoughtlessly much as is “diversity,” and seldom mentioned is that assimilation is often never complete. For while large groups who immigrate to a nation often do change, they also are agents of change. Did the large waves of Irish, Italian and German immigrants not alter America somewhat? This might have been a good, bad or neutral thing, but it’s assuredly a real thing.

There are also those who don’t assimilate markedly, if at all. Have the Amish or Hasidic Jews assimilated noticeably into the wider culture? Again, I’m not here making a value judgment on their particular different-drummer walk. The point is merely that assimilation is, foolishly and dangerously, taken as a given when there’s great precedent proving it’s not.

And this also is a numbers game. The rare Muslim who contemplated going to the West many years ago had to be a different kind of Muslim, one who understood he was entering a Christian culture that wouldn’t cater to his desires. He and his co-religionists would be so few and far between there’d be no prospect for “Halal” groceries, Islamic interest-free financing or Muslim schools for his children. So he’d be forced to assimilate by having to work within the established institutions of the host nation. But great numbers of Muslims form their own enclaves and their own institutions; this reality not only makes the journey west more inviting to pious Muslims, but also enables them to reinforce each other’s beliefs.

There’s another problem with assimilation: a prerequisite for it is providing something attractive to assimilate into. The communist political activist Willi Munzenberg once reportedly said, “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” This has been accomplished. Decadence is everywhere, and we no longer even know what marriage is or what boys and girls are. French president Francois Hollande recently canceled a dinner meeting with the Iranian president because he refused to bow to a demand to serve Halal meat and no wine. It’s good he took at least that stand, but one could just imagine his hurling accusations of “intolerance” at Christians who refused to refrain from saying the Lord’s Prayer before a meal with Muslims. It’s an example of how Western Europe has been hollowed out, how it has the superficialities of its culture but not the substance. What are foreigners today supposed to assimilate into in today’s France, Italy, Germany and U.S.? Bread and wine; pasta fagioli; Wiener schnitzel; and baseball, hot dogs and reality TV, all lathered in moral relativism? Are they really going to follow the lead of a dying anomaly in a world of growing religiosity? Heck, I’m a Westerner, and as a believing Christian I refuse to assimilate into my country’s wider culture (although I save my cutting off of heads for broccoli). Thus, with assimilation, even if Muslim migrants were buyin’, they wouldn’t be buyin’ what we’re sellin’.

Of course, none of this means we should toss the post-Christian West from the frying pan into the fire. If you want to destroy liberalism, though — both the suicidal modern ideology and the extant remnants of the classical variety — Islamization is a sure way to do it.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

Refugees and children of refugees have been connected to terror plots in the U.S.

The Expanding Threat Posed by ISIS

GOP Lawmakers, National Security Experts Debate Risks, Syrian Refugee Programs’ Vetting Process

Reports: Syrians headed to the US border as southern border-crossings heat up again

Governors’ Revolt Continues: No Syrian Refugees

Over at PJ Media I discuss the growing defiance of Obama’s suicidal refugee policy:

As of Monday evening, the governors of twenty-four states have declared that they are not going to allow any Syrian refugees to be settled in their states. Barack Obama, predictably enough, is livid.

The governors have all cited, quite reasonably, the security risks involved in taking the refugees. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, noted that “a Syrian ‘refugee’ appears to have been part of the Paris terror attack. American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger.” Robert Bentley, the governor of Alabama, agreed, explaining that he did not want any of the refugees in Alabama because “I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.”

The governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, was similarly security-minded: “No, I’m not interested in accepting refugees from Syria,” he said. “My view on this is the safety and security of the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. is my highest priority. So I would set the bar very high on this.” Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson stated simply that taking Syrian refugees at this time “is not the right strategy.”

Barack Obama remains convinced that it is exactly the right strategy.

He said that the Paris jihad massacre, which were perpetrated by, among others, at least two “refugees” who had just recently arrived in Europe, was just a “setback” that wouldn’t deter him in the slightest from pursuing his scheme to flood the U.S. with at least 10,000 refugees from Syria. He termed opposition to his plan “shameful,” casting American acceptance of the refugees as a moral imperative and saying: “We have to, each of us, do our part, and the United States has to step up and do its part.”

The United States has to do its part, in Obama’s view, but he didn’t explain, and of course was not challenged by his lapdog media, why Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar don’t have to do their part. Those countries, even though they have a linguistic, cultural and religious bond with the refugees, have accepted none of them at all all, citing the risk of terrorism. Why can’t Americans cite the same risk, and likewise refuse to take in these refugees?

Obama didn’t answer that question, but he did imply that objection to the refugees was really all about religious bigotry:

When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims. When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted. When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution — That’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

Fair enough. But do we have common sense limits to our compassion? If the “right-wing extremists” of the administration’s imagining were really as lethal as Islamic jihadis, Obama might have a point about not applying religious tests to our compassion. But unfortunately for Obama’s presentation of the issues involved in the refugee crisis, Christians are not waging jihad around the world. Christian terrorists did not boast last February that they would soon inundate Europe with 500,000 refugees – Muslim terrorists did. The Lebanese education minister did not recently warn that there were 20,000 Christian terrorists among the Syrian refugees in camps in his country – he said there were 20,000 active jihadis. It was not a Christian terrorist, but an Islamic State operative who boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx into Europe began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 terrorists had already entered Europe.

Obama didn’t address those facts. Instead, he portrayed the refugees — all of them — as victims:

The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism … It is very important … that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.

Meanwhile, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes tried to address some of the real concerns, asserting that American officials had “very extensive screening procedures” that they would employ among the refugees. Former NATO supreme commander James Stavridis added his own claim that U.S. officials would be able to vet the refugees “safely and appropriately,” and declared:

We should continue to take a substantial number of Syrian refugees because it is the right thing to do for the international community and because over time they will prove to be citizens of real capability and true grit, like many who immigrated before them in troubled times. The key is serious vetting using all the tools at our disposal.

How he knew that the refugees would “prove to be citizens of real capability and true grit,” he didn’t say.

At the same time, there were discordant voices. FBI Director James Comey doubted that the refugees could be easily vetted: “If we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen … it will be challenging,” he said — and most jihadis from Syria have not crossed the U.S. radar screen, as the U.S. fought for ten years in Iraq, not Syria….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: Police shoot Muslim wearing apparent suicide vest and holding triggering device

Video: Muslims in Turkey celebrate Islamic State jihad massacre in Paris

VIDEO: The French-Gaza Connection

Day of the Dead GAZACaptain Dan Gordon, a reserve Officer with the Israel Defensive Force explains how the Paris jihadis are using the HAMAS operational battle tactics to launch terror attacks in France and other countries soon to come. Dan has served in Israel for over 40 years and in combat in many wars against Islamic jihad.

Don’t miss this fascinating interview with Dan Gordon, a veritable Renaissance Man, who holds duel citizenship in America and Israel and is a highly acclaimed Hollywood Producer, Screenwriter and Author.

His latest thriller, Day of the Dead: GAZA, predicted these exact type attacks on Western cities, with the United States clearly on the imminent targeting list of ISIS.

hamas strategy

Sign the White House Petition Demanding a Moratorium on all Muslim Refugee resettlement to U.S.

Gates of Vienna reports that a petition in the wake of the Paris terror attack seeking the halt of all refugee resettlement to the US from Middle Eastern countries has been placed on the White House ‘We the People’ petition site.  Please go to GoV, see comments and follow links!

And, don’t forget that a sure fire way to stop the influx is to persuade Congress to use the POWER OF THE PURSE.  Go here for our post yesterday on that effort.  We must make our voices heard in a big way!

CLICK HERE to Sign the petition!

And, then call your members of Congress and U.S. Senators and tell them to pull the plug on the funding!   (Remember that U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Lindsey Graham are pushing for $1 billion to be ADDED to a funding package to reach the Senate floor on or before December 11th to increase the Syrian flow to America).