Tag Archive for: Koran

Stop Sharia Law Before it is Too Late

/in , , , , , /by

The brutality of shari’ah law embraces quite a number of laws and punishments that are contrary to long-held western ideas of justice and dignity of the human person.  Nonetheless, the foundation for shari’ah in the west is already being laid and solidified.   The shari’ah concept is totally incompatible with the basic concept of the United States citizenship and national loyalty and is fundamentally inconsistent with United States laws and the constitutional guarantees inherent in them.

This can easily be seen in comparing the fundamental rights guaranteed to United States sovereign citizens with very limited human rights recognized by shari’ah states.  The United States and the west, at large, define human rights broadly and extend them to all human beings regardless of sex, religion, or creed.  In stark brutal contrast, shai’ah defines human rights narrowly and limits them to muslims and qualifies them to be in complete conformity with shari’ah.

Specifically, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution set forth a non-exhaustive list of rights and liberties that are guaranteed to all Americans in what is known as the Bill of Rights.  Among these are the freedoms of speech and religion, the right to due process of law, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Similarly, the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations famous list of rights, exhibits a similar theme, beginning with an unequivocal acknowledgment of “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.  The declaration goes on to emulate, inter alia, the rights to “Life, Liberty, and Security, of person,” freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and rights to effective remedies under the law, and equal treatment or punishment; and rights to effective remedies under the law, and equal protection under the law.

These rights, liberties, and freedoms are guaranteed to all persons of all races, ethnicities, religions, and sexes simply by virtue of a person’s status as a human being who is endowed with “inherent dignity” and “inalienable rights.”

All fifty seven member states of the organization of the Islamic conference (OIC), however, disregard the aforementioned definition of human rights, which does not declare human rights to be “inherent” or “inalienable.”  The Cairo declaration on human rights, which was submitted by the OIC on behalf of it’s member states to the world conference on human rights in 1993, affirms only some human rights, which are qualified both in scope and application.  The Cairo declaration declares that all… “rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic shari’ah and that the “Islamic shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any [human rights].  As such, calling the Cairo declaration on human rights is a misnomer, for it does not declare the rights of humans at all, but rather sets forth the rights of only some humans or more specifically, humans who adhere to islam.  HMMPH!

This fundamental difference in understanding human rights manifests itself explicitly in the incompatibility of the civil and criminal laws of shari’ah with those of the United States.  Thus it is imperative that Americans are made abundantly clear about the crystal clear, fundamental differences between the Christian inspired Constitution along with the Bill of Rights and the dictates and the numerous bigoted aspects of shari’ah law.

America, time is fast running out for the possibility of restoring our great, but very troubled republic turned mob ruled democracy.  The problems are massive, to say the very least, but not insurmountable.  That is if only we are willing to once again adopt and adhere to the blessed principles that helped make America the one time envy of the world.

Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their assistance

Latest News: The Muslim Immigrant Invasion of Europe

/in , , , , /by

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.

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

/in , , , /by

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”

/in , , , /by

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’

/in , , /by

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

Refugee Resettlement Fact Sheet: What You Need to Know!

/in , , , , /by

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.

Can Muslims be Loyal to Anything other than Allah?

/in , , /by

A great example of the unlikely mix of Islam and civility and the conflict of allegiances is Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s decision to blast away at his fellow military mates at fort Hood Texas in November 2009.  He chose to kill over a dozen people, because they were not Muslim. While blowing hs victims away, he yelped the Islamic slogan, “Allahu Akbar!” (“god is great”).  For a soldier to viciously turn on his fellow soldiers in arms is incomprehensible enough, especially when one considers that in order to receive his commission as an officer in the Army, Major Hasan had to sign his name to an oath requiring his name to an oath requiring him to swear allegiance to defend the Constitution.  The oath also called for Major Hasan to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.

Nevertheless, despite swearing an oath to protect the United States and to remain loyal to his compatriots, Major Hasan, most certainly displayed glaring conflicting loyalties.  According to one of his former classmates, Major Hasan would not support the effort to defend against terrorism because he viewed such an effort as a direct war against Islam.  In a way Hasan had a point. After all even if somehow all Islamists are not terrorists, all of today’s terrorists are Islamists.  Oh well!  In fact, Hasan had energetically advocated for a conscientious-objector clause for Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The tug of war between his alleged allegiance to Islam and his so-called loyalty to the United States came to a snapping point, and Major Hasan went to nutsville and followed through on the murderous tradition of Islam and obeyed the tenets of his religion.  Hasan, gleefully killed twelve of his fellow soldiers, with the permission of Allah, of course.

Do you remember the Times Square bomber?  He is another sterling example of the transcendence of loyalty to Islam over loyalty to anything American.  Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born Muslim, became a naturalized United States citizen in April 2009, about one year before he attempted to detonate a bomb in the middle of New York City.  Indeed, the dialogue at trial between the presiding judge and Shahzad demonstrates this completely:

Judge: “Didn’t you swear allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”

Shahzad: I did swear, but I did not mean it.”

Judge:  “You took a false oath?”

Shahzad:  “Yes”

Examples like these demonstrates that, to many Muslims, Islam demands single-minded loyalty from its adherents that can admit no other allegiances.  The driving force behind Islamic unity will inevitably seek to eliminate all other contenders for allegiance and will not let the demands of American citizenship stand in its way.

One of the most obvious methods used by Muslims to demonstrate their loyalty to nothing but Islam or Allah is Jihad.  Jihad is commonly described as “to war against non-Muslims.”  The term jihad derives from the word mujahada, which signifies the use of warfare to establish religion.  Those in support of Islam claim that there are three distinct forms of jihad.  The first form is the “greater jihad” of battling against the inner-self to attain private holiness and devotion to the path of Allah.  The second form of jihad is da ’wah, or the invitation to non-Muslims to convert voluntarily to follow Islam and to follow Shari’ ah.  The third, most well-known form of jihad is the violent use of the sword in physical conflict with non-Muslims (“unbelievers” or “infidels”).  The ultimate objective of the three forms of jihad, collectively, is to convert all unbelievers to Islam (either voluntarily or forcibly) and to subject all non-Muslim territories to Islamic rule and government, i.e. shari ‘ah.

All three forms of jihad are mandated by shai ‘ah.  While violent shari ‘ah is the most commonly known form of jihad, political jihad (a type of da ‘wah) is currently the most significant threat facing Americans because it is latent and because it is imminent.  Da ‘wah literally means “call,” invitation,” or propaganda.”  It is a prerequisite to violent jihad because the Qur ‘ran states that Allah does not punish anyone until one has received the invitation to believe and an introduction to Allah’s law (shari ‘ah).   After the call or invitation to believe is extended, non-Muslims have three choices:  convert to Islam, submit to the Islamic ruler and pay a massive tax (jizyah) or fight and die.

My fellow Americans, the threat of Islam against us and our way of life is ever present.  The question is, will we be able to hold on until the imam is finally gone from the White House?  We can ill afford, nor should we tolerate any threat to our republic, including Islam, shari ‘ah, jihad, or whatever those women abusing Christian murdering gumps come up with.  Politically correct butt kissing of Muslims only strengthens their wicked resolve to kill, steal from and destroy any and every non-Muslim they can get away with harming in some way.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their worthy contributions to this column.

May God Bless America an May America Bless God.

President Thomas Jefferson’s Koran and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

/in , , /by
keith ellison

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN, District 5.

On January 4, 2007, newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison made history. He became not only the first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress, but he also took the ceremonial oath of office holding his hand on the Koran that had been owned by Thomas Jefferson. Dozens of television cameras, including one from the Arab network Al-Arabiya, were on hand to record this historical event.

Ellison had explained the importance of this ceremony in an interview the day before, “…in a private ceremony…I’ll put my hand on a book that is the basis of my faith, which is Islam…” (“Keith Ellison and the Jefferson Koran,”The Nation – The Beat Blog, January 3, 2007).

A few weeks after the swearing-in, Ellison said that the Koran “is the scripture that I read every day and it’s the book that I draw inspiration from” (“Rep. Keith Ellison: First Muslim in Congress,” FinalCall.com News, January 20, 2007).

The significance of this event was even recognized two years later, on June 4th, 2009, as President Obama was giving a speech in Cairo, Egypt. In the portion of the speech when Obama was talking about how Muslim-Americans had “enriched” the United States, he pointed out that Congressman Ellison had taken his oath on Jefferson’s “Holy Koran.”

So President Obama and Congressman Ellison proclaimed that Ellison had placed his hand on an actual Koran for this ceremony.

Jefferson’s Koran

The Koran Ellison used was a two volume translation of the Koran done by George Sale, a non-Muslim. It was titled The Koran, Commonly Called the Alcoran of Mohammed. It was first printed in 1734, but the two volume translation used by Ellison was from a second printing done in 1764. Digital copies of both volumes of this second printing can be located online. So let’s examine this particular Koran.

In the first volume Sale had three sections before his actual translation of the Koran began: Dedication,Introduction, and Preliminary Discourse. In the Dedication, Sale lamented the “detestation” with which the name Muhammad was laden. But then Sale contrasted the religion and laws of Muhammad to the laws of Jesus and Moses, “whose laws came really from heaven.” So according to Sale, Muhammad’s religion and laws had not come from heaven. Sale then went on to note that Muhammad used “an imposture [fraud] to set up a new religion.”

In the Introduction, Sale wrote that the Koran was a “forgery” (p. vii) and it “pretends to be the Word of God” (p. xiii). Sale criticized Muhammad for “imposing a false religion on mankind” (p. x). And Sale explained that he was providing “an impartial version of the Koran” because

it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture [fraud]… (pp. vii-viii)

In the Preliminary Discourse, Sale repeatedly pointed out that Muhammad had “pretended” to be a messenger from God (pp. 52-53, 93, and 96). Sale stated that Muhammad had “pretended” to receive the “revelations…which compose his Koran” (p. 55). And on numerous pages Sale repeated his assertion that Muhammad had “pretended” to receive those revelations (pp. 56, 64, 66, 82, 84, 100, 143, 190, and 192).

Sale addresses Muhammad’s “Night Journey” on pp. 61-62 of the Preliminary Discourse. In this journey Muhammad claimed to have traveled from Mecca to the seven levels of Heaven. He claimed he was accompanied by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) and rode on Al-Buraq, a white, horse-like animal, smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey. Muhammad claimed that he had visited the first six levels of Heaven, meeting one or more of the earlier prophets on each level. On the seventh level he had met Abraham and Allah, and received certain instructions from Allah. Sale wrote that Muhammad “feigns to have made a journey to heaven,” and only pretended that he had spoken with Allah. Sale summed up his feelings about Muhammad’s “Night Journey”:

And I am apt to think this fiction, notwithstanding its extravagance, was one of the most artful contrivances Mohammed ever put in practice…

And Sale believed that Islam was simply a “human invention” based on violence:

It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than a human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword…

(Preliminary Discourse, p. 65)

Questions Sent to Congressman Ellison

There had been much excitement over Congressman Ellison using Jefferson’s Koran for his ceremonial swearing-in. Jefferson’s Koran had been declared an official Koran by Ellison and President Obama. Yet this translation of the Koran had been done by a non-Muslim who not only considered Islam to be a manmade religion “that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword,” but who also considered Muhammad to be a charlatan, and the Koran itself to be false and a forgery.

With this in mind, on March 13, 2015, I sent an e-mail to Congressman Ellison in Washington DC, in care of his Communications Director, Mike Casca. The e-mail summarized the information above with regard to Sale’s beliefs about Islam, Muhammad, and the Koran, and I presented the following two questions for the Congressman’s consideration:

  1. Do you think Sale’s negative beliefs about Islam affected the accuracy of his translation of the meaning of each of the verses in the Koran? If they did, how might they have affected that translation, and can his translated work then be accurately referred to as a Koran?
  1. If you consider his work to be an accurate translation of the meaning of the verses in the Koran, how would you explain to your Christian and Jewish constituents verses such as these found in this work:

They are infidels, who say, Verily God is Christ, the son of Mary.

Vol. 1, p. 133  (Koran 5:17)

(So Christians are infidels.)

War is injoined [sic] you against the Infidels…

Vol. 1, p. 38    (Koran 2: 216)

…for the infidels are your open enemies.

Vol. 1, p. 114  (Koran 4:101)

Take not the Jews, or Christians for your friends; they are friends one to the other…

Vol.1, p. 141   (Koran 5:51)

Thou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity against the true believers [Muslims], to be the Jews, and the idolators…

Vol. 1, p. 147  (Koran 5:82)

My first e-mail to the Congressman went unanswered. After I had sent a second e-mail on March 19th, Casca responded that same day asking when I needed the answers. I replied that with the Congressman’s busy schedule, one or two weeks would be fine.

Now, four weeks, and two unanswered e-mails to Casca later, it appears that the Congressman has decided not to respond.

Based on the available evidence, Congressman Ellison apparently considers Sale’s work to be an accurate translation of the meaning of the verses in the Koran, and to also be a legitimate Koran. Consequently, it might be worthwhile for the congressman’s Jewish and Christian constituents to ask him why he has such high esteem for a book that speaks ill of Jews and Christians, and specifically calls Christians the “open enemies” of Muslims.

So let’s close with some verses from the book upon which Congressman Ellison placed his hand, and from which he said he draws inspiration:

As for the infidels…they shall be the fewel [fuel] of hell fire.

Vol. 1, p. 55    (Koran 3:10)

O true believers [Muslims]! wage war against such of the infidels as are near you; and let them find severity in you…

Vol. 1, p. 265  (Koran 9:123)

When ye encounter the unbelievers [non-Muslims], strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…

Vol. 2, p. 376  (Koran 47:4)

Mohammed is the apostle of God: and those who are with him are fierce against the unbelievers, but compassionate towards one another.

Vol. 2, p. 387  (Koran 48:29)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. The featured image of a Koran is courtesy of Shutterstock.

The Muslim Brotherhood, American Institutions and the BDS Campaign against Israel

/in , , , , /by

While the American people witness unthinkable atrocities against primarily Christians throughout the Middle East and the African Maghreb at the hands of Islamic terrorists, many of their church governing bodies and other institutions have decided to boycott Israel. That’s correct, Israel; America’s long-time ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East.

The Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement of Israel, known as BDS, has its origins in 2001, in South Africa at The World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR). At this NGO conference the Palestinian Solidarity Committee of S.A. distributed copies of anti-Semitic literature that was determined to be extremely offensive and toxic to many of the attendees.

In the U.S., the BDS movement against Israel has been an ‘influence operation’ by the Left and Brotherhood offshoots, such as C.A.I.R., the Muslim Student Assoc., Students for Justice in Palestine, ISNA and others groups. On college campuses throughout the country massive demonstrations against Israel have taken place in the form of “Anti-Israel Apartheid Week” and “Anti-Israeli Apartheid Week,” even in Florida at Florida Atlantic University.

The penetration of the hierarchy of U.S. religious institutions encouraging anti-Israel bias has come from many fronts, the U.N. based World Council On Churches, which many believe espouses pro-Russian, anti-Western stances and The Interfaith Boycott Coalition, described as “a faith based wing of the U.S. campaign to end the Israeli occupation;” supported by Brotherhood front groups. (Perhaps this was the real intention of the Muslim push for ‘Interfaith Dialog’ with our churches.)

Unfortunately, many of our church leadership have succumbed to this stealth campaign, including the Presbyterian, Methodist, Unitarian and other Churches. Moreover, U.S. companies that conduct business with Israel have been targeted as well such as Caterpillar and Hewlett Packard.

Natan Shcharansky, founding member of the Helsinki Group, uniting Soviet dissidents has established a “Three D Test” for legitimate criticism of Israel, when criticism crosses the line into anti-Semitism:

First: Double Standard- singling out Israel for criticism while ignoring the more egregious behavior of major human rights abusers in the Arab and Muslim world and beyond.

Second: Demonization of Israel- distorting the Jewish State’s actions by means of insidious and false comparisons with Nazis and/or South Africa’s Apartheid regime.

Third: Delegitimization- when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied-alone among all nations in the world- this too is anti-Semitism.

Laurie Cardoza-Moore, Special Envoy to the U.N. on Middle Eastern Affairs, president and founder of PJTN, serving in the capacity as the World Council of Independent Christian Churches, spoke recently at the Fort Lauderdale Tea Party and Broward Executive Republican Committee. Ms. Cardoza-Moore’s organization, PJTN, is focused on educating Christians about their Biblical responsibility to stand with their Jewish Brethren and defend the State of Israel.

Propaganda that the Jews ‘never inhabited the Middle East’ has been perpetuated despite the Biblical, Archaeological and Historical evidence, states David Horowitz. In 1402 B.C. Jews organized the Kingdom of Israel. Artifacts, coins and menorahs on buildings found in archaeological digs coincide with Biblical and historic records of Jewish ancestry in the land of Israel.

Historically, Jewish tribes have been present in the Middle East since 4000 B.C., even once occupying Saudi Arabia, until driven out and annihilated under the arm of Islam, which was founded in 613 A.D.

SOURCES:

EDITORS NOTE:

san francisco state university anti-bds petiton

Those readers who are concerned that pro-Israel speakers are being silenced may add their name to demand California stop anti-Israel hate mobs.