Tag Archive for: Mecca

Congressional Fact Sheet on Muslim Migration to U.S.

/in , , , , , , /by

You’ve heard me mention several times that on the day before the Paris Islamic terror attack, Don Barnett and I briefed staff of Congressmen and Senators on Capitol Hill on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.  The briefing was organized by ACT for America.  Again, this was before Paris and the whole refugee world was turned on its head.

House of Representatives Briefing

November 12, 2015

~Refugee definition:   The 1951 Refugee Convention spells out that a refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.”

However, there has been an intentional expansion of the definition. (Unaccompanied Alien Children is an example).

~The Refugee Act of 1980 created the Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) presently being administered to resettle approximately 70,000 refugees each year (in recent years) to the US.

~The Obama Administration increased the projected ceiling to 85,000 for FY2016.  10,000 of those slots are earmarked for Syrian refugees presently being referred to the US by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which says it has selected 20,000 for consideration so far.

~When the President sends his “Determination” to Congress in advance of the fiscal year (two weeks in advance is required!) it is accompanied by a report (Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2016). There is supposed to be a legally required consultation with Congress.

~There will be large increases this year from Africa including (but not limited to) DR Congo, Eritrea and Sudan.  The largest number of refugees arriving in recent years are from:  Burma (Myanmar), Bhutan/Nepal, Iraq, and Somalia.  We admitted 120,000 Iraqis since 2007.

~In FY2015, we admitted 1,682 Syrian refugees, less than 40 were Christians/other minorities.

~In 2014, the United States took in 67% of the refugees resettled around the world.  The next closest country was Canada with 9.9%.

~The UNHCR refers most of our refugees.  The Department of Homeland Security is charged with doing the security screening.  The Dept. of State (Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration) works with nine major refugee contractors who along with the State Dept. determine their placement in America.  The Dept. of Health and Human Services (Office of Refugee Resettlement) provides grants and additional federal funding mostly through those nine non-profit agencies.

~The anticipated cost to the US Treasury of the resettlement process (not including welfare/Medicaid/education costs) is projected to be just short of $1.2 billion for FY2016.

~The nine non-profit agencies contracted to resettle refugees include:  US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, World Relief (Evangelicals), Church World Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Ethiopian Community Development Council, and the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.

~There are 312 subcontractors working under the nine major contractors in 185 locations around the country.   There are 24 offices located around the country for the processing of Unaccompanied Alien Children.  A placement site map is available on line (attached).

~The states receiving the highest number of refugees in FY2015 were in descending order: TX, CA, NY, PA, FL, GA, MI, AZ, WA, and NC.

~States receiving no refugees in 2014 or 2015 were:  WY, MT.  Delaware received none in 2014.

~State and local elected officials have virtually no say in the resettlement process. This is especially so in the so-called Wilson-Fish states where the state doesn’t even have a refugee office under state government and the program is completely run through the US State Department and a non-profit organization.  Those states are:  AL, AL, CO, ID, KY, LA, MA, NV, ND, SD, TN, VT and San Diego County.

~Refugees are a special class of legal immigrant which permits them to receive virtually all forms of welfare upon arrival.

~Grassroots opposition is growing throughout the US to the resettlement process mostly due to the lack of transparency and the fear of Islamic radicals who might get in through the program.

Some points regarding the proposed Syrian resettlement and the European migration crisis:

~Only about 50% of the migrants flooding Europe today are Syrians.  The next highest number are from Afghanistan.

~These are a mix of asylum seekers and economic migrants.  Asylum seekers must prove that just as refugees, they fear returning to their homelands for fear of persecution (escaping war per se has never been a part of the refugee definition).

~We are not expected to get refugees from the European flow (Malta exception).  Ours will come through UN referrals from mostly UNHCR camps and regional offices.

~The refugee resettlement contractors (NGOs mentioned above) working with the US State Department began advocating several years ago for the resettlement of 15,000 Syrians per year for each of the next 5 years.  They then modified their request to 65,000 Syrians before Pres. Obama leaves office.  Subsequently they have demanded 100,000 Syrians before 2017.

~Earlier 14 US Senators wrote to the President asking for 65,000 Syrians.  A total of 84 Senators and Members of Congress have subsequently urged the President to speed up security screening.

~FBI Director James Comey has told Congress that Syrians cannot be thoroughly screened because the Administration has no access to data (biographic or biometric) on most of them.

This post is filed in our category entitled ‘where to find information’ which now contains 401 previous posts.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Agenda 2030: UN sets goal for sustainable development, has 15 years to get it done

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) straddling the fence again on refugees/immigration; bring in children and old women

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, one of the camps from which the UNHCR is choosing Syrian refugees to migrate to the United States.

Reversing the Muslim Tide

/in , , , , , , /by

In the days following the horrific slaughter of innocent men, women, and children by radical Islamists in Paris, small groups of Syrian refugees have been  detained in unlikely ports of entry throughout the western hemisphere.  Eleven Syrian refugees, traveling with fake passports, were detained in Paraguay; 5 Syrians, traveling with stolen Greek passports, were arrested in Honduras; 3 Syrian men, traveling with fake Greek passports, were arrested on the Caribbean Island of St. Maarten after traveling through Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti; and 8 Syrians were arrested after making it as far as the INS border checkpoint at Laredo, Texas,

Is it my imagination, or is there a pattern developing here?  Is it pure coincidence that so many Syrians were detained in unlikely western hemisphere locations while trying to enter the U.S. illegally?  Could it be that they were acting under orders from ISIS to make their way into the U.S. for purposes of committing acts of terrorism?  And if these four insurgencies were detected, how many others went undetected?

In the meantime, Barack Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Islamic refugees per year has drawn strong opposition across the country.  While Republican presidential candidates argue that the 10,000 Syrian refugees now destined for resettlement should be barred from entering the U.S. until a fail-safe vetting formula can be developed, Democrats argue that U.S. immigration officials should simply trust the refugees to answer truthfully when asked whether or not they represent an existential threat to the American people.

In light of a great many vicious terror attacks, both here and abroad, the American people are understandable frightened and are unwilling to accept additional large numbers of Muslims into our country.  Unfortunately, members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, fail to recognize that the question of whether or not to admit additional Muslims has already been decided in the negative.  What I have suggested in recent columns is that, if the intent of the current law is unclear, the Congress should rewrite sections of the Communist Control Act of 1954, a statute that has not been overturned by the courts and is still in force, to read as follows:

 SEC. 1. PURPOSE.  The Congress hereby finds and declares that certain organizations exist within our borders which, although purporting to be political or religious in nature, are in fact instrumentalities of foreign political or religious entities or ideologies whose purpose it is to overthrow the Government of the United States by any available means, including force and violence.  Such organizations operate as authoritarian dictatorships within our borders, demanding for themselves the rights and privileges generally accorded to all political parties and religious denominations, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.                                                                                  

SEC. 2. PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  Any political or religious organization as described herein, or any successors or affiliates of such organizations, regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose it is to overthrow the government of the United States, or to force the political or religious conversion of its people by force or violence, or threats thereof, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or its political subdivisions; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities heretofore granted to said religious or political organizations, or any subsidiary or affiliate organizations, by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are hereby rescinded.

This amendment to the Communist Control Act of 1954 would serve to reinforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 414, which effectually bars any and all Muslims from either entering or residing in the United States.  That law, otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, is still on the books.  And while it has not been enforced by recent administrations, Democrat or Republican, it is sufficient to protect the American people from attacks such as those carried out on September 11, 2001, and subsequent atrocities.

Chapter 2, Section 212, of the McCarran-Walter Act contains numerous provisions which bar  Muslims from legally entering or residing in the United States.  For example, Islam permits Islamic men to marry up to four wives.  And although fewer than 2% of Muslim men have multiple wives, the practice of polygamy is permitted under Islamic law.  Section 212(11) of the McCarran-Walter Act prohibits all aliens who are polygamists, or who practice polygamy, or who  advocate the practice of polygamy, from entering or residing in the United States.

Section 212(19) of the Act bars entry to any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States by fraud, or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact.

Section 212(27) of the Act bars all aliens “who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally, to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States.”

Section 212(28) of the Act denies access to all aliens who are anarchists, or who have at any time been  members of or affiliated with, any organization that advocates or teaches the overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

In addition, the McCarran-Walter Act contains provisions for a reporting system whereby all aliens are required to report their current address to the INS each year.  It also establishes a central index of aliens in the U.S. for use by security and enforcement agencies… much as Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson have suggested.

Section 212 of the Act makes irrelevant any current debate or legislative proposal that would restrict or delay the entry of large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees.  Section 212 concludes by saying, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

In other words, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Muslims are prohibited from obtaining visas to enter or immigrate to the United States, and it gives Obama the authority to do exactly what the American people want him to do… i.e. suspend any further immigration of Muslim refugees to the United States.

Muslim immigration is prohibited under McCarran-Walter because the Koran and Sharia Law require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.  All those who subscribe to the Koran as their guiding principle, by definition, subscribe to Islam and its form of government.  Most liberals and Democrats insist that Muslims cannot be prohibited from entering the U.S. because Islam, as a religion, is a protected class under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.  However, Islam is not merely another religious denomination.  Islam is a complete social, political, economic, legal, judicial, and military system with a religious component.  As such, it is totally incompatible with principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.  Islam does not, and cannot, merit 1st Amendment protections.

When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was sent to President Harry Truman for his signature, he vetoed the bill.  However, his veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.  Speaking in support of a veto override, Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV), a principal author of the Act, said what any Republican of today might say.  He said, “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization, and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.  I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors.  However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary, are its deadly enemies.”

He concluded by saying, “Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain.  The solution to the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.  I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”

How prophetic!  The enemies of America have been highly successful in “riddling our system to pieces,” and never before has the “last flickering light of humanity” been in greater danger of being extinguished than it is today.  What is needed is not a temporary halt to immigration by the “hard-core, indigestible blocs” that now threaten us, but a reversal of the immigration that has taken place since the McCarran-Walter Act became law in 1953.  So long as radical Islamists insist upon achieving world domination through acts of unspeakable violence, and so long as so-called “moderate” Muslims merely look on as bystanders, peace-loving peoples must insist that Muslims settle their age-old differences in total isolation, in their own barren lands.

If and when a new immigration bill comes before Congress for a veto override, Republicans would be well advised to resurrect the wise counsel of their 1953 colleague, Pat McCarran.

Radical Muslim Properly Defined

/in , , , , /by

Going back as far as 11 Sep 2001, I have been listening to media heads, politicians, and self proclaimed counter-terrorism experts worldwide explain to the masses what a Radical Muslim is and how they became radicalized. I have listened, analyzed, and self educated myself for over 2 decades on the issue of the terms radical and radicalized.

During my hundreds of visits to mosque in America, listening to Islamic scholars, Muslim worshipers and from studying the material provided to Muslims in a mosque I have for the best part of 2 decades that the terms radical and radicalized have been falsely defined by people who should know and who for decades have been leading innocent people astray of the true definitions.

I will not use several pages to discuss issues that do not relate to the terms radical and radicalized. The simpler written is the best for all to understand. If our media, politicians, and counter-terrorism professionals are providing false information about these two very important terms, do we expect liberals to provide accurate definitions?

Okay, follow me with my basic definitions of radical and radicalized. If at the end you still do not fully understand then please contact me at davegaubatz@gmail.com and I will help clarify.

1. Radical Muslim: This term in describing a Muslim who kills innocent people, rapes and kills young girls, advocates the hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, straps on suicide vests and kill innocent people, carry out shootings and explosive attacks on people at civil and innocent events, advocates killing Christians worldwide, desires in their hearts an Islamic caliphate worldwide and have the law of the land be controlled by Sharia law, and who believes 100% that their Prophet Mohammed was a perfect human and a man to be put upon a pedestal as an example of good to all, are not Radical Muslims.

The people and their actions, beliefs, and followers of Mohammed 100% in their daily lives are not radical, they are just Muslims. These people are not being misguided by the true form of Islam, they know the actions and objectives they follow and advocate is exactly what the Quran teaches and what Prophet Mohammed advocated for them his entire life and beyond. These people are the perfect examples of a Muslim carrying out each and every aspect of Sharia law and never questioning the teachings of the Quran and Mohammed. These people have studied Islam for many years and are closer to Mohammed than any other people on earth. Some become ‘Pure Muslims’ at an early age and for some it takes longer. Few people will reach the utopia of Islam. possibly as low as 1 in a 1000 achieve this goal, but when they do they are the light of Islam and their numbers will be in the millions. They will flourish across all lands to form an Islamic caliphate under Sharia law.

2. A Useful Analogy: When a young boy dreams of becoming a professional major league baseball player, he knows it will take years of study and practice to elevate himself to the highest level of baseball. He will start in little league, make it to the junior high and high school levels and most people who love baseball and desire to make it to the major leagues seldom make it past high school. They have lost their love of the game and no longer want to spend their free time practicing the finer arts of baseball at a higher level.

There are a few who continue after high school and make it to a minor league program of baseball. Many linger here for years and do not have the desire, talent or willingness to make it to the highest level of baseball (Major League Baseball). You must answer a question now. Are the boys who after many years of self sacrifice and study who make it to the Major League Radical baseball players or are they boys and men who fully understand all aspects of baseball and can now play and teach others? These professional players know in their hearts and minds what real baseball is and they understand the rules and regulations by heart and are at a utopia place in their lives.

In order for the world to understand and defeat Islamic based terrorism we must come to terms with the facts that Islam, the Quran, Prophet Mohammed and Sharia law is not an ideology of peace and caring for humanity, but rather an ideology of hate and violence as the rules and regulations laid out by Mohammed were meant to be. Mohammed did not desire for Muslims and Islam to be associated with love, but instead advocated for the worldwide dominance of Islam and violence was to be used to achieve this goal.

Hopefully by now we are beginning to understand just because a person comes to a point in his or her life that they now understand completely and have a desire as Mohammed did to spread Islam through violence does not mean they are being radical. They are the ‘Pure Muslims’ of the world who have accepted the clear and apparent aspects of the evils of Islam and Mohammed and are willing to give their lives in order to spread evil across the world. Essentially Islam is a form of following Satan. Readers must get it out of their minds that Islam has anything to do with peace and that Mohammed was a peaceful man. Islam is aligned with Nazism and the leader of Nazis known as Hitler.

3. A Radicalized Muslim: Day after day we are forced to listen to the media, politicians, and counter-terrorism professionals describe to us how a person goes through various steps to become ‘radicalized’. I consider their misunderstanding of Islam and Muslims to be a far greater national security threat than all Islamic based terrorists combined. These people who should have a better understanding of Islam are misleading the world when they say a person who just bombed innocent people for instance in Paris became radicalized. These Muslims did not become radicalized. They became ‘Pure Muslims’ because they have studied harder than their peers to understand and carry out the objectives of their Prophet Mohammed.

If my analysis of what a radical Muslim is or how the term radicalized is misleading, who are the millions of people who relate to Islam, but never make it to the Utopia level of fully understanding Islam and becoming ‘Pure Muslims’? These people are the apostates of Islam. They do not fully accept Islam, Sharia law, or the total teachings and understand of Prophet Mohammed. These are people that ‘Pure Muslims’ are killing in large numbers around the world.

Mosques are the little league fields, high school fields, minor league fields and for some the path to the major leagues. The objectives of all Imams teaching at mosques is to get their followers to become ‘Pure Muslims’ by accepting the real truths of Islam and what Prophet Mohammed desired. Mosques are the breeding grounds for the practicing of pure evil by pure Muslims.

The Muslim Parasite and the Western Host

/in , , , , , /by

There has been much discussion about the coordinated Muslim migration from Syria to Europe and the United States. This migration has been called by some a parasitic one, as Muslims become welfare recipients of the host nation while they maintain their sacred duty to remain devout followers of Mohammed.

History shows how the followers of Mohammed cannot by Muslim law (shariah) integrate or assimilate into the host nation’s culture. Rather they feed off the host country until the time when they have sufficient political, financial, social and military power to overthrow the host country and replace it with Islam.

Europe is witnessing a revolution against the Muslim “invasion.”

Columnist Robert Heller in an email titled “Why Christian refugees should be given priority to emigrate to the U.S.” writes:

Christians are earmarked for genocide by the Islamic State. Many have already been beheaded or otherwise slaughtered. When President Obama said there should not be a religious test he omitted the fact that people marked for genocide and extinction should by all human instincts be saved from certain death. These people marked for death happen to be Christian.

If the Islamic State decided all people with blue eyes or black skin should be marked for genocide would President Obama say we don’t recognize their plight over Muslims who wish to emigrate because living in a war torn country is dangerous or difficult.

The issue is not whether a person is Christian; it is that this particular group of people are subject to rape, torture and death above all others. Obama’s effort to make this a Christian or Muslim religious issue is beyond comprehension.

Former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger, in his column “Second Thought: A U.S.-Israel Initiative”, writes:

Europe has ignored the significant impact on contemporary Islamic geo-strategy by crucial milestones in the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, such as the 7th century Hijrah (Islam-driven emigration). Muhammad emigrated/fled from Mecca to Yathrib (Medina) – along with his loyalists – not to be integrated and blend into Medina’s social, economic or political environment, but to advance and spread Islam through conversion, subversion and terrorism, if necessary.  Asserting himself over his hosts and rivals in Medina, Muhammad gathered a critical mass of military might to conquer Mecca and launch Islam’s drive to dominate the world.

In 1966, this Hijrah precedent was applied by Mahmoud Abbas, Arafat and the entire Fatah leadership which emigrated/fled from Syria to Jordan, incited the Palestinian population of Jordan, but failed in their attempt to topple the hosting Hashemite regime. In 1976, they failed in their attempt to topple the regime in Beirut, which had hosted them since they emigrated/fled from Jordan in 1970. In 1990, they collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s invasion and plunder of Kuwait, stabbing the back of the Sabah family, which had hosted them, their relatives and PLO associates since they emigrated/fled from Egypt in the mid-1950s.

On Friday morning, November 13, 2015, a few hours before Islamic terrorists launched their offensive against France, French Muslim children studied – and French Muslim adults heard in French mosques – that according to the Quran, humanity must submit to the prophet Muhammad, and the “infidel” must accept Sharia’ laws; “Holy War” (Jihad) must be conducted on behalf of Islam, and the participation in the Jihad rewards one with the benefits of paradise; the abode of the “believers” (Dar al-Islam) must be expanded into the abode of the “infidels” (Dar al-Harb), who are doomed to the sword; prohibiting “believers” to submit themselves to the rule of the “infidel,” except as a temporary tactic; agreements with “infidels” are provisional, as a prelude to subordinating the “infidel;” emigration of the “believers” must serve the historical, supremacist goal of Islam; and shielding the “believers” from “infidels” may require the Quran-sanctioned Taqiyyah – double talk and deception-based statements and agreements to be ignored, contradicted and abrogated once conditions are ripe.

Selwyn Duke in his column “Islamic influx: Why a Religious Test for Immigrants is Moral and Wise” writes:

People believe in things.

Some of those things are good and true, others are bad and false. And if what people believe is bad and false — whatever water-muddying label it wears — there’s every reason not to vote for them. There also may be good reason not to befriend or hire them, depending on the degree and nature of the badness. There may be reason to keep them out of your home.

And there certainly may be reason to keep them out of your national home.

It should be noted that when Charles Martel saved Europe from a Muslim invasion in 732 A.D. and when the responses to Islamic aggression known as the Crusades were launched in 1095, people understood the above well. In fact, the earliest known uses of the terms “religious” and “secular” were, respectively, 1200 and 1300; even so, they didn’t have their current meanings. “Secular” as in “in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality,” only dates from 1850.

Thus, during Christendom’s formative years, adolescence and rise to dominance, people did in fact view the world more clearly in the most important sense: they understood that there was simply the true and untrue. Maybe now we can understand why Pope Benedict XVI identified the 13th or 14th century as the West’s high water mark.

Read more.

The ultimate question is: Whom do you trust?

Recent events in Paris and Mali must be viewed in a historical perspective. Islam and the followers of Mohammed have a sacred duty to conquer the non-believers. Remember the Middle East was once a Judeo/Christian paradise of prosperity, trade and peace.

It fundamentally began to change when Mohammed migrated (hijrah) from Mecca to Medina. Thus ends today’s lesson.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Does Global Warming Only Turn Muslims Into Terrorists?

More Syrians Stopped at the Border

Barack Obama Blocked 75% of Strikes on ISIS

Al-Qaeda claims Mali slaughter: “All praise is due to Allah”

Bonjour Tristesse [Hello Sadness]!

/in , , , , /by

black flag of jihad stalks la republique

Now available on Amazon.com in book and Kindle versions. See Editors Note [below] for link to order.

Paris 20-21 November 2015

Friday: Steady cold rain is falling as the truth starts to sink in. Rain extinguishes the memorial candles and flattens the bouquets in front of the grieving restaurants and the horrified Bataclan and piled in terraces around the Marianne at Place de la République. The streets of Paris are forlorn, the boutiques are empty, there’s no line waiting for a seat at the falafel joints, Christmas merchandise lies on the shelves, dumbstruck.

There was a brief moment of satisfaction at the news that the “mastermind” of last week’s attacks was indeed dead several times over and beyond recognition after the 7-hour siege of his last hideout. DNA or some other tracer was matched to some shreds or drippings of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, junior Daesh executive in charge of planning jihad attacks in France and the Benelux countries. The so-called mastermind was caught by CCTV at the Croix de Chavaux métro station in Montreuil last Friday night at around 10 PM. The black Seat used by the easy riders who had finished executing people on restaurant and café terraces had been abandoned less than two blocks away. And the Big Chief ducked into the metro and jumped the turnstile. Punk!

I coined the term “punk jihadis” in November of 2005 when the banlieues went on a three-week torching spree. The pretext back then was the death of two youths running from the police; the boys took refuge in an electric power station, and got electrocuted. Last Friday night punk jihadis killed 130 people in Paris, to punish them for being depraved Crusaders who listen to music, eat, drink, and make merry…

…for tomorrow we shall die? The truth sinks in and you assimilate it. In the immediate aftermath people light memorial candles…to forget the dread that has befallen them. They leave bouquets of flowers, hand scrawled notes, ribbons and flags and badges and other signs of life that will not die. After checking to make sure immediate family members are alive and intact, Parisians enlarged the scope and quickly touched the grief of bereaved friends and acquaintances. The media publish unbearable photos and accounts of first responders and survivors. The savagery screams in your ears like the sirens that wailed all night long.

Those columns of intruders marching into Europe on the tails of the Aylan Shenu photo are a living metaphor of our current situation. Savage killers were in fact embedded in the mass. Only a minority, you were reassured, as if that were an acceptable risk to take for the sake of not losing your humanitarian label. And now, and for decades, only a minority of ruthless mass murderers are hiding like squiggles in the wallpaper of Muslim communities in Europe. TV cameras pan the streets of Molenbek, base camp of the recent assault—all the women are in hijab. I am not the kind of journalist who pushes a microphone under someone’s chin and asks a pointed question. What do you think about what happened? Who do you think did it? There is a different way of gathering and processing information. My memories of hundreds of man-in-the-street interviews play back today. I only have to look at the faces. The punks who actually grab the Kalashnikov and go on a killing spree, the punks that cheer them on, the nobodies with garbled minds that deplore the killing but deny its origins… Decent, perceptive, articulate Muslim intellectuals speak out too. These days they are more welcome than usual in the media. They are the real tiny Muslim minority. And most of them say, in measured voices: that’s not the real Islam.

Writing close to the bone, I am overwhelmed by a flood of anecdotes and impressions. Reading distractedly the words of people commenting from a distance, I am close to infuriated by their flippancy. Some are so eager to latch on to a euphemism here, a sidestep there, and declare that the stupid French still haven’t caught on that Islam is what’s going on. Don’t gloat. I happened to be in the United States on 9/11. When I returned to France a week later I was, yes, infuriated by their flippancy.

Countless hours of attention yield a full range of attitudes and analyses that can, however, be summarized. French people specifically and Europeans in general are on a learning curve. It is the difference that is notable, not the hangovers from an opaque recent past. Regional elections are coming up in December. Even though the issues are not technically international or even national, citizens will be voting on the question of Islamic jihad, for or against. That is, resist or fudge. And I still think that Marine Le Pen will not be the one to cash in the chips.

Saturday: The story line last night was: Parisians will not be terrorized. Here they are at Place de la République, lighting new candles to replace the ones that were rained out. Someone brought a piano to the improvised memorial near the Bataclan. People are singing and dancing, they went to the bistrots and had a drink. From screen to screen and one makeshift memorial to the other, correspondents served the plat du jour. “Hundreds are gathered” they said, confident that no one would notice the pitiful irony of it all. “Hundreds” means hardly anyone. So be it. People have to process this reality in their own way. Today a cold wind blowing directly from the North Pole (where there is apparently enough ice to chill us to the bone) is battering the memorial flowers as icy rain smothers the candles.

Last Sunday it was sunny and mild. I decided to jump at an exceptional opportunity to go face to face with CNN. First, I walked around the square twice to get the feel of things. My eye was caught by a small graffiti in the plaque marked 21 septembre 1792. Flics, hors de nos vies[cops, bug out of our lives]. Probably a remnant of the pro-Hamas rallies of the summer of 2014.

At the CNN tent, Hala Gorani said to a colleague, as she munched on a sandwich, “I’ve got to stop eating.” Nice opening. I encouraged her to keep enjoying the best of the Paris… “Like you said this morning in your tribute to our city.” She tells me she grew up here. And I show her a photo of pro-Hamas caliphators waving the black jihad flag right here in the Place de la République, right there on the pedestal of the Marianne, now decorated with flowers, candles, and même pas peur declarations. “Do you know what this is?” She doesn’t know, but aha, she’s no pushover. “This is photoshopped,” she says with a wink of cleverness. “No, it’s a collage. But this Palestinian flag, this Gaza Mon Amour poster, and this black jihad flag are at the same place at the same time. It was a banned demonstration. July 19th 2014. Israel was defending itself against attacks from Gaza.” She looks uncomfortable. I give her a black & white photo of the cover of my book, The Black Flag of Jihad Stalks la République. And my visiting card. “I’m available if you’d like to talk to me.” The next day and ever since, Hala Gorani and her colleagues, all CNN BigShots, have been serving generous portions of Islamophilia. For example, an interview with someone from the Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie, who deplored the wave of house arrests as if it were worse than Guantanamo.

Radio Communauté Juive, one of several Jewish radio stations that share an FM band, could be fairly designated as “leftist, with highbrow aspirations.” On a midday newscast last week, journalist Paule-Henriette Levy, interviewing high ranking military man, apparently wanted to query him on the real impact of air strikes against Daesh positions. “Thirty-three dead,” she remarked, clearly swallowing the word “only” that gave meaning to her question. Then, her humanitarian reflexes kicking in, she blurted: “Of course every life matters…33 dead is 33 too many…”

I-télé aired an excerpt from an interview with the sister and brother of one of the Bataclan killers. They are horrified, simply horrified by what he did. He’s not our brother, he’s a monster, they sob. They repeat their horror, their sorrow, their distress, their stupefaction. And to think it was happening a few blocks away from the théâtre de la Main d’Or where they were watching Dieudonné perform. The interviewer is a bit stupefied himself. “You went to see Dieudonné’s show? He’s very controversial. Are you anti-Semitic?” And they reply, hidden behind the thickest biggest most checkerboard face blur I’ve ever seen, “No, we were just having fun, it’s a comedy show.”

I suppose most readers will have seen footage of the bespectacled guy who lent the apartment in St. Denis where Abaaoud made his last stand. Interviewed by BFM TV during the standoff, he could barely contain his arrogance and contempt for the journalist who dared to ask him how he came to give refuge to the notorious terrorist. “A copain asked me lend the place to some of his potes for a few days. I said ok. I helped him out, monsieur, that’s all, a helping hand.” Of course he didn’t know they came from Belgium, he didn’t know they were terrorists. And perhaps he didn’t see the policemen standing nearby that gently took him by the arm and led him to the paddy wagon. He’s still in custody. According to an article in Libération* the snooty chap subsequently identified as Jawad Bendaoud, is the goon of slum landlords that were renting apartments in the building, officially declared unfit for habitation. Bendaoud reportedly was sentenced to an 8-year term in 2008 for manslaughter. The victim was a friend. So I guess this wasn’t the first time he helped out a copain. The downstairs neighbor of the hideout also told her story to TV cameras. The building was shaking, plaster was raining down from the ceiling. She didn’t need to be blurred. She was in niqab. A cute young flirty looking friend of Bendaoud gives a different version. She says the apartment was abandoned. Her copain just broke in and expropriated it. He lent it to people who needed a place to crash. Is that so? Then how does she explain the fact that the armored door was so strong it resisted the explosive charge used by the SWAT team to break in and surprise the occupants?

Bendaoud was curiously precise in the pre-arrest interview: “I told the copain that there’s nothing in the apartment, no mattresses, he said it’s okay, all they need is water and a place to do their prayers.” A few hours later, pieces of Hasna Aitboulahcen, identified as Abaaoud’s cousin, were blasted out of the apartment, along with a bloody mattress [sic] that fell to the ground for all the eyes of the world to see. Just before Hasna was blasted by the suicide belt of the third fugitive, a policeman shouted up to her “Where is your boyfriend” and she replied “He’s not my boyfriend.” The confused young woman, who was a party girl until a few months ago, revealed in that brief exchange the juvenile stupidity of these mass murderers. She sounds like an 8 year-old girl with a ribbon in her hair meowing at recess. “Gna gna gna, Alhamid likes Hasna,” chant les copines and Hasna stamps her foot and says, “He’s not my boyfriend.”

The enemy says we are racists, but when the savages shoot into the crowd, they murder people of all colors, creeds, and origins. The names of the dead are an international repertoire of contemporary French history. But they, the crazed killers, are all the same.

If going to cafés and bistrots is an act of résistance against the savage murderers, there are still some distinctions to be made. Go into any Muslim neighborhood anywhere in France and you will find men sitting in cafés and bistrots for hours on end.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may now order Nidra Poller’s new book “The Black Flag of Jihad Stalks la République” on Amazon.com.

VIDEO: Muslim migration or Islamic invasion?

/in , , , , , /by

Jihad Watch‘s Robert Spencer addresses contentious Muslim migration issues of today. He believes that this is a Hijrah, a jihadist invasion of the West, not a migration as the media likes to interpret it.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Hijrah as:

Hijrah, also spelled Hejira or Hijra (“Flight” or “Emigration”), Latin Hegira, the Prophet Muhammad’s migration (622 ce) from Mecca to Medina in order to escape persecution. The date represents the starting point of the Muslim era.

There are Muslim Jihadis both in Europe and on the way to America.

Map Of Radical Mosques in the U.S. According to the Clarion Project

These mosques or their leading clerics have radicalized attendees to become terrorists, supported terrorist organizations, made radical Islamist remarks or hosted others that have, or are financially backed by radical individuals or organizations.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump Sets Off a Furor With Call to Register Muslims in the U.S.

President Obama rejects Intelligence reports on known Islamic terrorists

Muslim Migrants Are Killing Christian Migrants

Barack Obama Blocked 75% of Strikes on the Islamic State

EDITORS NOTE: This video is courtesy of DemoCast.tv.

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

/in , , , , , /by

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?

/in , , , /by

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

Islamic influx: Why a Religious Test for Immigrants is Moral and Wise

/in , , , , , , , /by

With the Paris terror attack and flooding of Western nations with Muslim migrants, Senator Ted Cruz and others have proposed limiting Muslim immigration into the U.S. In response, Barack Obama and John McCain have said that having a “religious test” for newcomers would be un-American. It’s a belief betraying dangerous philosophical juvenility.

Before getting to the deeper issues, it doesn’t take an Aristotelian mind to grasp the following: If one million Chinese Christians immigrated to our nation, the probability is decent that not even one of them would turn to terrorism. The same cannot be said of Muslim newcomers. And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, if 1/10th of 1 percent of 1,000,000 of them are terrorists, that’s still 1,000 dangerous jihadists. Terrorism today is a Muslim phenomenon.

Even more dangerous, though, is the modernistic phenomenon of false moral equivalence. Would you say it was un-American to apply an ideological test to immigrants and deny entry to Nazis or communists? People will say that’s different; on an instinctive level, we view our ideology as superior to others and some ideologies as downright evil. But what is the substantive difference among them? It’s that they espouse different values. And unless we’re moral relativists, we understand that because of this they cannot all be morally equal.

Now consider: Different religions also espouse different values. This is largely why we can call them “different” religions. Conclusion?

They cannot all be morally equal.

You’ll only say otherwise if, again, you’re a moral relativist. But if relativism is “reality,” it then follows that no ideology can be better than another, either. If Christianity and Hinduism were equal despite their different values, so would liberalism and conservatism be; if Judaism and Islam were, so would libertarianism and Nazism be. “Values” are either relative or they’re not — you can’t have it both ways.

What follows from this is that religions, like ideologies, can run the gamut from the good to the bad to the ugly, from the ethereal to the excremental. The Aztecs’ religion, like so many pagan ones, required human sacrifice on a massive scale, and the Christian religion put an end to it. The Romans’ pagan religion allowed for the brutality of the arena, and the Christian religion put an end to it. I’ve heard many conservatives say “Islam is not a religion,” but the truth here is a bit simpler: similar to ideology, religion isn’t bad, but there is bad religion.

In point of fact, the distinction between “secular” and “religious” is, in the most important sense, a false one. Many today, awash in militant “secularism,” talk and behave as if the labels “secular” and “religious” alone are enough to qualify an idea for or disqualify it from the public square and the stuff of laws. This notion has no basis in reason and ignores the only distinction that really matters.

What would this be? Well, if Marxism is a destructive lie (in sum), what is more significant, that it’s labeled “secular” or that it’s untrue? If God’s existence is a reality, what is more significant, that we label the idea “religious” or that it is true? There’s only one distinction of any consequence whatsoever: the true and the untrue. Everything else is water-muddying, pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

In other words, at bottom people don’t believe in “ideologies,” “religions” or “philosophies.”

People believe in things.

Some of those things are good and true, others are bad and false. And if what people believe is bad and false — whatever water-muddying label it wears — there’s every reason not to vote for them. There also may be good reason not to befriend or hire them, depending on the degree and nature of the badness. There may be reason to keep them out of your home.

And there certainly may be reason to keep them out of your national home.

It should be noted that when Charles Martel saved Europe from a Muslim invasion in 732 A.D. and when the responses to Islamic aggression known as the Crusades were launched in 1095, people understood the above well. In fact, the earliest known uses of the terms “religious” and “secular” were, respectively, 1200 and 1300; even so, they didn’t have their current meanings. “Secular” as in “in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality,” only dates from 1850.

Thus, during Christendom’s formative years, adolescence and rise to dominance, people did in fact view the world more clearly in the most important sense: they understood that there was simply the true and untrue. Maybe now we can understand why Pope Benedict XVI identified the 13th or 14th century as the West’s high water mark.

So what changed? Why are we confusing ourselves with terminology? Well, a prerequisite for believing something is “true” or “untrue,” in a real sense, is believing there is a yardstick for thus measuring things, namely Truth. And most contemporary Americans (and other moderns), as this 2002 Barna Group study shows, don’t believe in it. They are relativists.

Since many well-meaning readers occupy this group, I ask you to bear with me and consider the following carefully. Here’s how I always explain this matter: who or what determines what we call right and wrong? There are only two possibilities: either man does or something outside of and above him does — namely God (if the agency outside us weren’t above us, there’d be no reason to defer to its “law”). Consider the implications of each position. If an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect and benevolent being that created the Universe — the physical reality we see — also created moral reality (Truth), then we can say right and wrong is a real thing, unchanging, nonnegotiable and inerrant. It’s not merely a matter of “perspective” or feelings.

But what if, as the ancient Greek Protagoras said, “Man is the measure of all things”? Well, if you learned that the vast majority of the world liked vanilla but hated chocolate, would this make chocolate “bad” or “evil”? Of course not. We know it’s merely a matter of taste.

Alright, but how is murder any different if the only reason we believe it’s “wrong” is that the vast majority of the world dislikes the idea of killing others in a way they consider “unjust”? If it’s merely consensus preference — if there’s nothing more we can cite as evidence of this thing called “wrongness” — then it occupies the same category as flavors: taste.

Some may now say, “C’mon, Duke, we’re talking about finishing off people, not dessert! This is a moral issue.” Again, though, absent Truth, the category of “moral issues” would also be man’s invention, also just a result of the consensus preference that some preferences should be classified differently from other preferences. And, hey, to echo that popular relativist refrain, “Don’t impose your values on me, dude.”

This helps explain why many people subscribe to the ObaMcCain no-religious-test notion. We have become so relativistic that we, at bottom, view religions merely as flavors of the day. Why don’t we apply the same to ideologies, whose “values” would also be relative? Simply because, absent a belief in Truth, people’s tendency to operate based on emotion is exacerbated. And emotion isn’t logical. Most relativists haven’t truly thought their ideas through carefully and applied them consistently. If they had and nonetheless wouldn’t dispense with their relativism, they’d conclude what Friedrich Nietzsche and occultist Aleister Crowley had, expressed by the latter as “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” (And in this case they’d realize they, logically, could treat “religion” and “ideology” differently because relativism dictates that consistency can be no better than inconsistency. Few people would make this logical but foolish decision, though, as opposed to the millions who can be influenced wrongly by emotion.)

And why do people’s emotions today influence them toward the double standard in question? First, people again are creatures who believe “things”; they need something to give their lives meaning, real or illusory. And in this godless age, “ideology” has taken the place of “religion,” which is why we see leftist protesters exhibiting jihadist-like fervor. Second, people often see how “ideology” affects them, the connection between it and how they’re governed. They know that putting liberals or conservatives in office can make a difference.

What they unfortunately don’t realize is that world view, “First Things,” influence whether one will be liberal or conservative — or something else. It’s no coincidence that the Founding Fathers were Christian. It’s no coincidence that the mass-murdering Marxists were atheists. It’s no coincidence that the Nazis were neo-pagans. And it’s no coincidence that the Muslim world never birthed democracy. It makes a big difference whether your credo is “Do what thou wilt,” “Do what Jesus wilt” or “Do what Allah wilt.”

So, yes, a religious test, if not in law but in citizens’ minds, is appropriate for lots of things. And immigration is no exception.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mali: ‘Allahu Akbar’ screaming terrorists take 170 hostage, kill non-Muslims, free those who know Koran

In ‘First Step’ to Address Terrorism Fear, House Easily Passes Bill to Toughen Screenings of Syrian Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Eight Syrian Muslims caught illegally crossing Texas border

/in , , , , /by

Why would Syrians be trying to enter illegally when Obama is breaking down every restraint in order to get them in legally? Only if they’re up to some nefarious purpose.

“EXCLUSIVE — REPORT: 8 Syrians Caught at Texas Border in Laredo,” by Brandon Darby and Ildefonso Ortiz, Breitbart, November 18, 2015:

Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. The federal agents spoke with Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity, however, a local president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) confirmed that Laredo Border Patrol agents have been officially contacting the organization with concerns over reports from other federal agents about Syrians illegally entering the country in the Laredo Sector. The reports have caused a stir among the sector’s Border Patrol agents.

The sources claimed that eight Syrians were apprehended on Monday, November 16, 2015. According to the sources, the Syrians were in two separate “family units” and were apprehended at the Juarez Lincoln Bridge in Laredo, Texas, also known officially as Port of Entry 1.

Border Patrol agent and NBPC Local 2455 President Hector Garza told Breitbart Texas, “Border Patrol agents who we represent have been contacting our organization to voice concerns about reports from other agents that Syrians crossed the U.S. border from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. Our agents have heard about Syrians being apprehended in the area from other federal agents.” Agent Garza added, “At this time, I cannot confirm or deny that Syrians have crossed, for security reasons.”

Agent Garza further stated that in matters as sensitive as Syrians crossing the border from Mexico, it would be highly unlikely that federal agencies would publicize it or inform a broad group of law enforcement. He did say that Local 2455 is taking the reports seriously and that they “will be issuing an officer safety bulletin advising Border Patrol agents to exercise extra precautions as they patrol the border.”

Breitbart Texas can confirm that a Syrian did attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Texas in late September. The Syrian was caught using a passport that belonged to someone else and U.S. authorities decided against prosecuting anyone involved due to “circumstances.”

What circumstances?

RELATED ARTICLE: Toronto Muslim charged with carrying concealed meat cleaver into Parliament

VIDEO: The French-Gaza Connection

/in , , , , /by

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

Shut-down the Mosques to shut-down Islamocrimes

/in , , , , /by

The mosque is the heart of Islam, shut down the mosque to shut down Islamocrimes.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: ‘Absolutely no choice’ but to close mosques

Closing Mosques: Dishonest DC Media Blasts Trump For … Agreeing with European Socialists

Dutch Parliament Member: We Must Close All Mosques

U.S. Embassy in Paris turned away Americans seeking safe haven during Islamic State slaughter

/in , , , /by

“They decided to walk two miles to the U.S. Embassy, hoping they could take shelter there. But, her husband said, they were turned away.” Why? Would letting them in have been tantamount to admitting that there is a jihad threat?

“Passengers arrive at Atlanta airport safely after Paris ordeal,” by Carrie Teegardin, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, November 14, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Travelers arriving in Atlanta from Paris on Saturday afternoon described extraordinary long lines in Paris to get through security.

Claudio Merloni, who lives in Paris and was arriving in Atlanta for business, said it took more than two hours to go through a security line that usually takes him 10 minutes. Merloni said there was nobody on the streets in Paris when he left for the airport today.

“It’s two attacks, both in France in the same year,” he said. “You start to feel really targeted.”

In the midst of the chaos that erupted in Paris Friday night, Rebecca Hill-Bogle started to wonder how she and her husband, Will Bogle, were going to get back home to Georgia.

They were in Paris to celebrate Will’s birthday and were having dinner when Will looked at his phone and realized something was going on. The server at their restaurant told them they were about 10 minutes away from one of the deadly explosions that occurred during Friday night’s wave of terrorist attacks in the heart of the city.

“We saw a lot of police and ambulances; they were scurrying through the streets,” Will Bogle said.

The Macon couple tried to get a cab to get back to their hotel, but all the taxis were full.

Hill-Bogle is six months pregnant and she was starting to panic. They decided to walk two miles to the U.S. Embassy, hoping they could take shelter there.

But, her husband said, they were turned away.

“I was pretty disheartened that we weren’t allowed to get in,” he said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Can France Fight ISIS? By Helping Israel

After Paris jihad massacre, Lindsey Graham wants to double funding for Syrian “refugees” and bring even more to U.S.

NATO top dog on Paris jihad massacre: “This is not a fight between the Islamic world and the western world”

Bernie Sanders: Climate change is directly related to the growth of Muslim terrorism

/in , , , , , /by

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” That is true. However, it contradicts Sanders’ other claim, that climate change, that is, “limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops,” led to the rise of terrorism. If it were really all about fights over diminished resources, then these jihad groups would have arisen even without the U.S. taking out Saddam Hussein, no? In any case, if climate change has given rise to terrorism, why don’t we see Arab Christian or Yazidi terrorists? After all, they lived in Iraq and Syria alongside the Muslims. So why weren’t they driven by the lack of water and land to form their own terrorist groups?

It is astonishing that a man this deluded could be taken seriously as a candidate for President. But his view here is a mainstream Democrat Party position.

“Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is Directly Related To Terrorism,” by Michelle Fields, Breitbart, November 15, 2015:

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Saturday that climate change is directly related to terrorism.“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties [sic] all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.

Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.

When Sanders was asked his thoughts about Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war he added: ” I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.”

“I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States,” hr [sic] claimed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

FBI top dog won’t release motive in Chattanooga jihad shootings: “We don’t want to smear people”

France bombs the Islamic State — so what did that accomplish?

/in , , , , /by

The French, in response to the 132 plus slaughtered French and foreign nationals killed by Muslims in Paris on Friday loaded up very expensive bombs under their beautifully washed and waxed fighter jets for retaliation today. Time for a feel good raid with no planning or mission objective. Just drop some bombs.

The French in their infinite wisdom have been bombing Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria for months as part of a U.S.-led operation. Why? Which side do we pick in a civil war? The side of the moderate or the side of the extreme Muslim?

I say we let them kill each other and offer sanctuary to the Christians. We can watch the great battle from Google earth.

Unlike westerners, Muslims embrace death and are honored to die as a martyr. So these attacks on Muslims solve nothing. They blow themselves up and they don’t care if a French bomb kills them. For every Muslim killed two dozen more are ready to fill in the hole. When you stomp on an ant pile the ants remove their dead and build another mound.

Using $150,000 bombs to blow up $50 tents is not the long term strategic answer to solving this problem in Syria or the Middle East. Besides, the U.S. Constitution does not permit a U.S. led operation in Syria….zero authority.

Obama is using the Patriot Act to put boots on the ground in Syria. The Secretary of the Air Force let it slip that a ground invasion is the only solution. A total by-pass of our irrelevant and impotent Congress. Why are we still paying these people a salary anyway? They do nothing.

Following Friday’s mass slaughter by Muslims using weapons banned in some U.S. cities, the disarmed French citizens, unable to defend themselves, where totally helpless and totally dependent on the French government for protection and were thus massacred. The blood still wet on the streets. You can’t shoot back with iPhones and BIC lighters.

Not to be left with their pants down around their ankles the liberal, weak spineless French- Paris powder puff leadership vowed to destroy the Islamic State. The question is what group is the Islamic State?

Underlining its resolve, French jets on Sunday launched their biggest raids in Syria to date, hitting its stronghold in Raqqa. How sweet is that? Muslims don’t have factories to produce weapons so what was bombed?

“The raid … including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped,” the Defense Ministry said. Among the targets were a munitions depot and training camp, it said. Yippe, 20 bombs at a cost to the French tax payer of how much money 3 million plus Euros not including the fuel and pilots hazardous duty pay ?

Who was killed ? What was achieved ? Nothing.

Why are the Saudi’s and the UAE not sending in fighter jets to fight this Muslim problem? The Syrian civil war is not a French problem….these Muslims are not our problem. This is a Muslim problem. We must focus inward. The problems we face in this nation are roosting in the White House coordinating the downfall and destruction of capitalism and freedom from within our own borders.

We have no business in Syria or the Middle East fighting anyone. Syria is a sovereign nation and Assad is a capitalist and secular leader who has reformed his country. His efforts over the years have changed things especially in the regulatory environment and in the financial sectors, including the introduction of private banks and the opening of the Damascus Securities Exchange in March 2009. He wants his people to prosper.

He wants to do business with the United States.

When I was in the U.S. Navy we ensured all sea lanes where kept open in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. I served in this neck of the woods. Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region. We should be doing business with Syria not bombing it. Obama is more interested in insuring chaos in the region continues and the French follow along.

Syria has its civil war and they will solve it. When we stick our nose into the camels tent we will receive Muslim reprisals. We should be securing our own borders not Syria’s.

The Russians are more than capable of offering aid to its Syrian ally. If we wish to defeat the Islamic State we must start by cutting off all trade with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an oil-based economy with oppressive government controls over major economic activities and its people. They behead and stone people to death in public. Not a nice country.

Saudi Arabia controls about 16% of the world’s proven petroleum reserves, ranks as the largest exporter of petroleum, and plays a leading role in OPEC. OPEC controls the price of a gallon of gas in downtown Meridian Mississippi, think about that. Iran gets it refined petroleum from whom? Saudi Arabia.

The petroleum sector in Saudi Arabia accounts for 80% of budget revenues, 45% of GDP, and 90% of export earnings. So lets CUT OFF the trade and starve them of capital. Saudi Arabia has the 19th largest economy in the world by nominal gross domestic product (GDP) at $745.273 billion and 11th by purchasing power parity (PPP) at $906.8 billion.

Saudi Arabia publicly does not support ISIS and the Sheiks consider it a threat to their security but social media fundraising campaigns in this nation are sending hard cash and capital from Saudi Arabia to Syria.

To ensure that their contributions actually reach Syria, Saudi donors are encouraged to send their money first to Kuwait, which has long been considered one of the most easy going laid back friendly terrorism financing environments in the Persian Gulf.

Ladies and gentleman. We liberated Kuwait in 1991 now they repay us by funding ISIS in Syria with donations from Saudi Arabia. Kuwait still owe us billions of dollars from tax payer incurred costs in Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990 – 1991. Saudi Arabia is the root of the problem. Who flew planes into the World Trade Center ? Saudi’s. Who funded 9/11 ? Saudi Arabia.

Twenty-five years ago we booted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait when in fact this job should have been left to Saudi Arabia. We did not interfere with the Iraq – Iran 8 year war.

Today, Saudi citizens continue to represent a significant funding source for Sunni groups operating in Syria. Arab Gulf donors as a whole — of which Saudis are believed to be the most charitable — they have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to the Islamic State and other groups.

Although Saudi donors and other private contributors were believed to be the most significant funding source for the original forerunner to ISIS, the importance of such donations has been marginalized by the group’s independent sources of income.

Dropping 20 French bombs on a $400 training camp in Syria will not defeat the Islamic State it will only ensure more attacks on weak soft western targets in countries open borders like in Europe and our southern flank bordering Mexico.

The long term strategic, operational and tactical way to defeat the Islamic State is to stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia, reinforce Israel’s military, shut down the flow of oil from Iran out of the Persian Gulf and to secure our borders.

We have enough oil in the United States to sustain our energy needs. We must stop bombing and start thinking. Our nation cannot continue to borrow money from Communist China to buy bombs to drop on Syria and hope to win anything. Our military must be rebuilt with our next President and this will cost money. Stop wasting it.

We must dig deeper and think further ahead. How does the Islamic State operate? How can Muslims travel so freely across Europe? Why do they have an endless supply of cash? Who is funding them? Sort through it without firing a shot. All eyes on Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Do something useful get involved with Act For America (Brigitte Gabrielle) and help set up a chapter in your town to educate and assist in the issues affecting the current issues facing us. Get involved locally.

The only bombs needed to end world terrorism would be a tactical nuke on Mecca during the Haj and on Tehran any time. But that would take a leader. Iran got only one thing right in its history… In 546 BC, Croesus of Lydia was defeated and captured by the Persians (Iranians), who then adopted gold as the main metal for their coins.

Hang in there Patriots I can see November 2016 from my back porch.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Jihadi in the White House

Who Is Next? Countries That Are On ISIS’s Hit List

ISIS releases ‘Kill List’: Seven Texas cities included