Tag Archive for: Quran

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.

Roman Catholic bishop advocates submission to the Islamic State

/in , , , , , /by

This brilliant article sums up not only the myopia of Bishop Robert Barron’s approach to the Islamic State (and to the global jihad in general), but the weakness and wrongheadedness of the entire contemporary Catholic Church when confronted with jihadist savagery.

There is today a wholesale confusion of weakness and submission with compassion and mercy, such that many Church leaders, including but by no means limited to Bishop Barron, believe that Christian charity mandates acquiescence to evil and submission to it. They think it is a matter of “respect” for Muslims as human beings for Christians to bow to violent intimidation from Islamic jihadists, and to assent to restrictions on their behavior that are demanded by way of jihadi threats.

Those who think, on the contrary, that it is more respectful and charitable to Muslims to refuse to enable and reward bullying and bloodlust have no place in today’s Catholic Church.

Bishop-Robert-Barron

Bishop Robert Barron being interview on EWTN Nightly News. Photo courtesy of EWTN.

“The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron,” by Maureen Mullarkey, OnePeterFive, November 23, 2015 (thanks to Tom):

I have never been more than an occasional viewer of Fr. Robert Barron’s Word on Fire chats. His recent televised interview with EWTN’s Catherine Szeltner put paid to whatever interest I had.

Newly elevated to an auxiliary bishop in the sprawling L.A. diocese, now-Bp. Barron was in Baltimore for his initial appearance among the USCCB. Ms. Szeltner was on hand to ask how Catholics should respond to the slaughter in Paris. “How should they react?” she wondered, as if Catholics were dependent on guidance in their attitude toward carnage.

This was hardly a spontaneous interview. Chairs had been set. The bishop had not been caught on the run; he was not speaking off the cuff. On the contrary, it is standard practice to establish before air time which questions will be asked. Ms. Szaltner was wide-eyed with anticipation for an answer that had already been rehearsed. Here was the fledgling bishop’s moment to affirm public solidarity with the mantra of love heralding the Year of Mercy. Which—the Vatican just announced—extends to Muslims.

Barron began with a self-reverential response that carried a hint of conceit for having been placed among the great and the good. Our new bishop has ascended above even just anger. The massacre aroused no outrage, not even a wince of distaste. Rather, his first words were on fire with . . . nostalgia. He found the atrocity “especially poignant” because he had studied in Paris for three years. And because he remembered some of the locations involved, the attacks were “moving and poignant.”

Not obscene, not demonic, foul or repellant. Poignant. It is a word appropriate for the death of a kitten. Applied to the murder and maiming of innocents, it is worse than unfitting. It is shameful.

He glided on to a serene tutorial on mercy, on the obligation to “respond to violence with love,” and “to fight hatred with love.” He enjoined Catholics to mercy and “a non-violent stance.” Listening, I realized why I have never been able to cotton to Word on Fire: Barron is smarmy. His genial TV persona has none of the alert, intellectual muscularity of Fulton Sheen whose lead he presumes to follow. This time on camera, he confused Paris in 2015 with Selma, Alabama in 1965.

Sanctimonious appeal to non-violence is typical of middle-brow respect for the strategy of King—learned from Gandhi—minus any grasp of its genius. There is nothing commensurate between the cultural situation of the American civil rights movement and the events in Paris. To try to impose the conditions of that movement onto Islamic jihad is astonishing in its obtuseness. Mercy is vacated of all meaning when it is used as an excuse for blindness to history, or for inaction in the face of present realities.…

Genocide was never the end game of either the British or the segregationist forces in the United States. Genocide—mitigated only by conversion or the slavery of dhimmitude— is an objective of Islam. Barron misleads his audience with bankrupt, Vatican-stroking noises about nonviolence.

The limited applications of non-violence were obvious when, in 1938, Gandhi advised Europe’s Jews to practice nonviolent resistance against Nazi persecution. In some mystical way, this would supposedly result in Germany’s moral reformation. Nearly eighty years later, Bishop Barron offers the same futile rationale—in the name of Christ crucified—to Catholics.

Inversion of circumstances between Islam and the West is as bizarre as it is reckless. Non-violence is the resort of the weak against the strong. By inviting Catholics to adopt “a non-violent stance” against jihad, Barron insinuates assent to inferiority. It is a failure of will dressed in Christian idiom. Call it submission.

In practical terms, what does it mean to respond with love to genocidal intention? How is non-violence applicable to a contest of civilizations in which one side is committed to the annihilation of the other? Wherein lies the moral force of non-violence against a bloodlust cultivated for fourteen hundred years?

Gandhi’s notorious advice to Jews was tantamount to telling them to march quietly to the ovens. Whether satyagraha serves freedom or a final solution depends on the variables of situation. Bishop Barron’s inability to discern critical distinctions makes his ministry dangerous.

He remains a cheery, good-natured promoter. Sadly, what he promotes is dhimmitude.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Will Downing of Russian Plane Impact Campaign Against ISIS?

Spencer, PJM: CNN’s Amanpour Shames US for Not Taking Unvettable Refugees…Then Fails to Vet Her Muslim Guest

Video: U.S.-backed Syrian “moderates” scream “Allahu akbar” over body of downed Russian pilot

CNN Fails to ‘Vet’ Radical Muslim Guest

/in , , , , /by

Over at PJ Media today I discuss CNN “journalist” Christiane Amanpour’s manifest bias and hypocrisy:

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour believes “we can all afford to be human” regarding the Syrian refugees. Recently, she condemned the U.S. and other countries for not letting them enter the homeland, despite FBI Director James Comey’s testimony explaining that vetting this population is literally impossible.

Apparently, “discerning” does not qualify as a human trait to Amanpour. Because soon after she offered her ill-considered, slanderous logic equating “responsible” with “heartless,” she employed this advice in her own decision-making — and she was taken.

Amanpour demonstrated exactly how Islamic radicals have learned to take advantage of those bearing her viewpoint.

Last Thursday, Amanpour invited Dalil Boubakeur, chairman of the Grand Mosque of Paris, to a sit-down interview. During the interview, Boubakeur strongly denounced the Islamic State (ISIS) and called for military action against it. He then declared that the barbarous terror group behind the Paris attacks had nothing to do with Islam:

Our religion is not one of violence, of jihadism, of terrorism, of women who kill. In what page of Qur’an is that written that a woman must take bombs inside her body to explode and kill other people? In what part of Qur’an is that said? In what page of Qur’an is it said that we shall kill innocent people? Young people?

Boubakeur then lamented that “little by little,” the Islamic State had won over the young Muslims of Europe. He declared that it was a “great error … not only of Muslims, but of the world to accept this.”

Then, Boubakeur called on Muslims in France to assimilate:

[It is] very important [for] French Muslim people to express their French nationality, their French taste, their French values, their French [rejection] of what is the danger for them, France, and for our religion also.

Had Amanpour recognized vetting as rational behavior — and understood her own viewpoint as reckless and irresponsible — then she would have known that Boubakeur’s insistence on “assimilation” could be nothing but a preposterous, exploitative lie considering his past behavior.

Homeland security expert Patrick Poole reported on Boubakeur’s rejection of Islamic “assimilation” with Western values in PJ Media last January. Boubakeur certainly does not oppose ISIS’s — or, in general, Islam’s — embrace of violence when he isn’t on Amanpour’s set:

[I]n 2006 at the height of the Danish Cartoon crisis, Boubakeur had published an article denouncing the cartoons and concluded by issuing a warning to all those — including Charlie Hebdo — who would publish caricatures of Mohammed, saying: “He who sows the whirlwind shall reap the whirlwind.”

Stop drawing Muhammad, and start abiding by Sharia blasphemy laws … or else.

Boubakeur, rather than being the assimilation-supporting, violence-spurning moderate Amanpour wanted him to be, is guilty of fanning the violence that resulted in deadly riots across the globe and ended in the horrific slaughter at Charlie Hebdo’s offices.

Boubakeur’s interview answers were no doubt music to the ears of Amanpour, as they matched the narrative she pushed in her September op-ed published by CNN wherein she castigated the U.S. for not taking more Syrian refugees. In the op-ed, Amanpour described the following as “heartwarming”:

… ordinary citizens, the responsible media, and generous governments all opening their arms to welcome a modern, yet biblical tide of humanity, fleeing war and persecution to safety here in Europe.

She scolded the U.S. and Canada:

… countries with big hearts, deep pockets and a habit of projecting their humanitarian values [are] unwilling to actually help end the war that would stop this exodus.

The U.S., she lamented:

… has only accepted fewer than 1,500 Syrian asylum seekers over the course of the war.

Amanpour did not address in her piece the real reason why many in the U.S. and elsewhere are reluctant to take in large numbers of these refugees: the prospect of Islamic jihadis being among them.

The Islamic State boasted last February that they would soon inundate Europe with 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese education minister recently warned that there were 20,000 active jihadis among the Syrian refugees in camps in his country. An Islamic State operative boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx into Europe began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 terrorists had already entered Europe.

None of that information made it into Amanpour’s piece. She likely is confident that Obama administration officials will be able to “vet” the refugees they admit into the U.S., as they have repeatedly promised to do….

She must understand now that to heed her call, to bring in those refugees in large numbers, might make her temporarily feel good about how tolerant and multicultural she is, but will be cold comfort to the rest of us when the bombs start exploding.

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tunisia: Islamic jihadists murder at least 12 with bomb on bus full of presidential guards

Roman Catholic bishop Robert Barron advocates strategy of submission to the Islamic State

Put “Refugees” in FEMA Camps

/in , , , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not their future.

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

And terrorist acts of concern occur in the future.

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

Well, they belong in refugee camps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIDEO: Top Clinton Aide lovefest with Muslim Migrants

/in , , , , , , /by

Best-selling author and award winning video journalist James O’Keefe has just released undercover video of two related events dealing with Syrian refugees. The first of these is at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser for women, where top Clinton aide Huma Abedin states that we cannot turn the Syrian refugees away. While attendees were told not to record Abedin’s statements, our undercover reporter secretly videoed them anyway. The other footage is of Syrian refugees in Greece expressing their support of Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Project Veritas released footage of three Syrian refugees in Greece who were caught on hidden camera talking about using fake passports to get to Europe and the US. They talked about using the same route as one of the terrorists who perpetrated the attack in Paris last week. One also added that that is how a lot of Syrians come to the US and that there are a lot of Syrians in France.

In the second video of this series, Project Veritas Action ties the Syrians in Greece to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Last Wednesday evening, the Clinton campaign held a fundraiser for women in Manhattan.  After the audience was warned not to record or post video of the event, an undercover Project Veritas Action journalist managed to obtain footage of Abedin’s speech as well as her responses to informal questions afterwards.

From the stage, Abedin spoke of a life-long Republican who allegedly stated, “You know what I realized when I started listening to Ben Carson and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz?   You have to prove you are a Christian to be a refugee in this country.”

“We are a country of immigrants,” continued Abedin. “We welcome people and when you listen to the Republicans – and this is my battle cry – it is really scary on the other side.”

After her speech, our undercover journalist asked Abedin to promise that if Clinton is elected, “she is going to do everything she can to let these Syrians in.”

“Absolutely right,” responded Abedin. “…We need to have leadership on this…we cannot turn these people away.”

The video then moves to Greece, where two undercover journalists suggest to the Syrian refugees who are possibly traveling under fake documents that they must hate Hillary Clinton. “No, we don’t hate Hillary Clinton,” one responded. When asked to confirm, they stated that they like Clinton.

“Due to our videos, there are multiple ongoing investigations into the use of illegal foreign campaign donations and the voter registration of illegal immigrants by the Clinton and other Democrat campaigns,” stated Project Veritas Action president James O’Keefe. “Perhaps that’s why Clinton supports Syrian refugees. Or perhaps the reason is far more nefarious.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s distorted Islamic State strategy by Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Retired)

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.

Interfaith Dialogue — A Bridge Too Far

/in , , , , /by

In this new monograph, adapted from Annex 1 of his superb recent book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy Stephen Coughlin explains what’s really behind the so-called ‘interfaith dialogue movement’ and how the Muslim Brotherhood has co-opted the well-meaning but misguided intentions of the Catholic Church in particular. Mr. Coughlin’s expertise in the nexus between Islamic Law (shariah) and Islamic terrorism informs his exposure of the manipulative Brotherhood strategy to use the interfaith dialogue arena as an opportunity to edge Catholics toward a dislocation of faith so as to pave the way for the insinuation of shariah into American faith communities and society in general.

Author Stephen Coughlin introduces the problem in this brief video:

At a time when Vatican policy seems to many to have become unmoored from the traditional doctrinal teachings of the Church in ways advanced by the permissive environment of the interfaith dialogue movement, including tolerance of anti-Constitutional, anti-Western, shariah-based Islamic principles as well as those who promote them, this publication hits home hard. As Mr. Coughlin points out, it is intellectually impossible to adhere faithfully to Church doctrine and yet grant acceptance to principles that are fundamentally opposed to such precepts at the same time. Only a dislocation of Catholic faith could allow such moral equivalence. Ultimately, as he argues, the objective of Islamic supremacists is the prioritization of interfaith relationships over advocacy on behalf of fellow Christians being slaughtered elsewhere by the co-religionists of their Muslim interfaith partners—in other words, the neutralization of the Catholic faith community as a serious obstacle to the encroachment of shariah.

In praise of this new Center publication, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said,

While the interfaith dialogue movement presents itself as a laudable effort to ‘bridge’ the distance between faiths, those more familiar with the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood know that the actual agenda of too many such efforts is, in fact, modeled after the well-known dictum of Sayyid Qutb, who candidly reminded Muslims that such a ‘bridge’ is ‘only so that the people of Jahiliyyah [society of unbelievers] may come over to Islam.

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere: The Catholic Church’s Case Study in Interfaith Delusion is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in Kindle format.

Click here to purchase this newly released monograph in paperback format.

 Click here for a full PDF of the monograph.

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.SecureFreedom.org

‘Democrats seem determined to defend Islam more than America’

/in , , , , , , /by

Republican presidential candidates respond to the ridiculous Democratic National Committee ad you can see here. Huckabee’s comment is most apposite, and is true not just of the DNC, but of the Obama Administration and the mainstream media — as well as much of the Republican establishment.

“EXCLUSIVE: Republicans Slam DNC Ad Attacking Them for Using Term ‘Radical Islam,’” by Patrick Howley, Breitbart, November 21, 2015:

WASHINGTON -Republicans are slamming the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) new attack ad criticizing the GOP for using the term “radical Islam.”

After radical Islamists carried out deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, the DNC released an ad hitting Republicans from George W. Bush to Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for even using the word “Islam” while talking about terrorism.

The GOP is outraged.

“Democrats seem determined to defend Islam more than America,” Gov. Mike Huckabee told Breitbart News. “No one in the GOP blames all Muslims but no one in the DNC blames any Muslims, even the ones who shout Allah Akbar just before cutting off the head of a person who professes being a Christian.”

“You can’t defeat the enemy if you are unwilling to even call it by name,” Jeb Bush campaign spokesman Tim Miller told Breitbart News.

“The Democrat ad is a poignant reminder of why the world has become less safe under an Obama administration: denial and political correctness have become the default strategies. That’s not how you lead, that’s not how you win and that’s not how we are going to keep America free and safe,” said Ben Carson spokesman Doug Watts….

RELATED ARTICLE: Sharia UK: London police dive into canal to rescue Qur’ans

Updated: Map of State/City positions on Syrian Muslim resettlement

/in , , , , , /by

In one short week, everything has changed in the political landscape around the UN/U.S. State Department Refugee Admissions Program, so much so that I’ve lost track!  Here is a good U.S. map and description (as of Thursday, the 19th).  I know 48 hours is a long time ago considering how fast things are moving, so send a comment to this post if your state has since changed its position, or if you have anything new to add.

From Citylab (hat tip: Jim):

map with states and mayors

Go here for more.  If you live in one of the green states, you need to let your governors know how you feel!

Roanoke!

Check our archives on that Virginia city, they have had their share of problems with refugees over the years.  See especially the stories about the refugees (sent to prison in 2009) for planning to kidnap for ransom some prominent women in the town.

Come on mayors!  We need some of you who have complained in the past to step forward now!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Malaysia: Obama meets with Rohingya (Burmese) Muslims on way to U.S.

Allentown, PA: Syrian Christian community is NOT “welcoming” Syrian Muslim refugees

Senator Jeff Sessions: Congress must use ‘power of the purse’ in refugee controversy

UNHCR freak-out as Balkan states start to balk

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Muslims praying. Photo by by Antonio Melina/Agência Brasil, Wikipedia Commons.

Obama Must Go

/in , , , /by

As one who had never felt as though George H.W. Bush was a man of presidential caliber and, if nominated and elected, would be a one-term president, I was more than happy to serve as deputy campaign manager in the presidential exploratory committee of former White House Chief of Staff, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who had a far more impressive resume than Bush and was a far more capable, competent, and decisive leader.

Unfortunately, the combined efforts of conservatives were unable to deny Bush the nomination and, as predicted, he was no match for the Democratic congressional leadership.  He allowed himself to be lured into a political trap by the Democrats in which he reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge and was defeated for reelection in 1992.  His poor performance in office caused me to write what was the first of many “Must Go” columns titled, “George Bush Must Go.”

The “George Bush Must Go” column was followed in subsequent years by columns suggesting that Senator Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor “must go.”  However, lest I be accused of rejecting only members of my own party from positions of power and influence, I should point out that I have also called for the resignation or impeachment of former Attorney General Eric Holder.  But now it’s Barack Obama’s turn.

In a November 14 column for the New York Post, columnist Michael Goodwin assessed Barack Obama’s approach to the war against radical Islam.  He said, “In any time and place, war is fiendishly simple.  It is the ultimate zero-sum contest… you win or you lose.”  True, but that’s not how Barack Obama sees things.  In his childlike world view he sees things not as they really are, but only as he wishes them to be.  As Goodwin describes it, “President Obama has spent the last seven years trying to avoid the world as it is.  He has put his intellect and rhetorical skills into the dishonorable service of assigning blame and fudging failure.  If nuances were bombs, the Islamic State would have been destroyed years ago.

“He refuses to say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ as if that would offend the peaceful Muslims who make up the vast bulk of victims.  He rejects the word ‘war,’ even as jihadists carry out bloodthirsty attacks against Americans and innocent peoples around the world.  He shuns the mantle of global leadership that comes with the Oval Office, with an aide advancing the preposterous concept that Obama is ‘leading from behind.’  He snubs important partners like Egypt, showers concessions on the apocalyptic mullahs of Iran, and calls the Islamic State the ‘jayvee team,’ even as it was beginning to create a caliphate.  Having long ago identified American power as a problem, he continues to slash the military as the enemy expands its reach.  In a globalized era, the Obama doctrine smacks of cowardly retreat and fanciful isolation.”

Goodwin reminds us that, in an accident of timing that demonstrates his profound cluelessness, Obama expressed his view of the current status of ISIS in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos just hours before radical Islamists staged a bloody attack on Paris.  He said, “I don’t think they’re gaining strength.  What is true, from the start our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them.  They have not gained ground in Iraq and in Syria.   They’ll come in, (then) they’ll leave.  But you don’t see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.”

The interview was aired at approximately 8:00 AM (EST) on Friday, November 13, on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”  The first bomb exploded outside the Stade de France, a football stadium north of Paris, at 9:16 PM Paris time (3:16 PM Washington time), followed almost immediately by volleys of gunfire and explosions at the Bataclan Concert Hall, the Le Carillon Restaurant, the Le Petit Cambodge Restaurant, and two other locations in Paris.  In a matter of minutes, 132 innocent people were killed and 350 others were wounded by Islamic terrorists.

The coordinated ISIS attacks in Paris began just 7 hours and 16 minutes after Obama declared ISIS to be “contained.”  Even as he pontificated for the TV audience, the terrorists were likely pacing the floor in their rented safe-houses, inspecting their AK-47s and their Kalashnikovs, loading ammo clips, and making last minute adjustments to their suicide belts.

It was the most deadly attack on Paris by enemy forces since World War II, prompting French President Francois Hollande to condemn the attacks as an “act of war,” vowing that France will be “merciless toward the barbarians of the Islamic State group.”  He said, “We will lead the fight and we will be ruthless.”  Sadly, those are the words we expect to hear from Barack Obama.

Goodwin concluded, “The time has run out for half measures and kicking the can down the road.  The enemy must be destroyed on the battlefield before there can be any hope of peace.  If Obama cannot rise to the challenge of leadership in this historic crisis, then, for the good of humanity, he should resign.  Those are the only options and it is his duty to decide.”

Yes, Goodwin is correct in his call for Obama’s resignation.  But is it even remotely possible that he… addicted as he is to the narcotic of holding power… would even consider the possibility of resignation?  Unlike the Nixon example, wherein Republican congressional leaders… Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R-PA), Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and House Minority Leader John Rhodes (R-AZ)… went to the White House for the purpose of informing Nixon that his support in Congress had all but evaporated and that, if he chose to fight impeachment, there was not sufficient support in the U.S. Senate to avoid conviction and removal.

Is there a man or woman alive who can honestly visualize their Democratic counterparts of today… Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)… going to the White House to tell Obama that his presidency is over and that he must resign to avoid impeachment?  Let’s face it.  The sort of patriotism that Republican leaders have demonstrated over and over again… i.e. Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc… just does not exist in the Democratic Party.  The desire to put the country’s best interests ahead of party interests is just not present in the Democratic DNA.

At the outset of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, every one of the 45 Senate Democrats went to the well of the Senate, raised their right hands, and swore: “I solemnly swear that in all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, now pending, that I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.  So help me God.”  Yet, every one of those 45 Democrats made that solemn promise to God, knowing that they intended to violate that oath.  In spite of mountains of irrefutable evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Clinton’s part, every one of the 45 Democrat senators voted to acquit.  The only member of the U.S. Senate to be seriously punished for voting “not proven,” in spite of irrefutable evidence that Clinton had perjured himself before a federal judge, was Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was turned out of office in a primary election by Republican voters.

And while impeachment is the most logical solution to the problem presented by Obama, it is clear that, if Republicans had the stomach to impeach Barack Obama, who has to his credit a long list of impeachable offenses, would they not already have done so at some time since January 20, 2009?  The fact is, Barack Obama continues to serve for no other reason than the color of his skin.  As a black man, he relies on the collective guilt of white liberals to engage in whatever “high crimes and misdemeanors” he feels are necessary to his political agenda.  It is indisputable that, if he were a white man, he would have been removed from office long ago.

The one remaining alternative is for the military to remove him… non-violently, if possible; by force, if necessary.  The Framers created a constitutional republic in which the military was, by design, made subservient to the civilian branches of government.  However, Thomas Jefferson knew that there were no guarantees where governments instituted by men were concerned.  In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, in referring to the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he wrote, “… that to secure these rights, governments are institutes among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…”

Inasmuch as Barack Obama has been, from the first day of his administration, destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and since he has repeatedly violated his oath of office by failing to “faithfully execute” the office of President of the United States, the American people are left with no alternative but to bring an abrupt end to his presidency, even at this late date.  And since congressional Republicans lack the courage to impeach him and leaders of his own party demonstrate insufficient love of country to call for his resignation, it is left to our military leaders to advise him that it is time for him to do the honorable thing.

If the joint chiefs of staff were to request an audience with Obama, accompanied by a delegation of the most highly respected retired flag and general officers… such as General Tommy Franks, General Paul Vallely, General Stanley McChrystal, and General Ray Odierno… to remind him that, inasmuch as he no longer enjoys the loyalty and the respect of members of the military services, from the top generals and admirals down to the lowest of enlisted ranks, he should summon up the courage to do what is in the best interests of the nation and its people.

If we were to judge our 44 presidents by their failures and their accomplishments, several would receive very low grades.  Barack Obama would be the only one to receive a grade of less than zero.  He has been, by far, the worst president in American history.  And if we stop to consider the damage that has been done, globally, by radical Islam in just a matter of months, imagine the damage that an embittered Obama can be expected to do in the remaining 14 months of his presidency.  For the good of the people, he should be forced to resign.

VIDEO: The G. W. Bush, Grover Norquist connection to a domestic terrorist

/in , , , , /by

Watch the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad state his support of HAMAS.

According to Discover the Networks profile on Nihad Awad:

In September 1993, Awad attended a secret three-day summit in Philadelphia along with a number of people whom the FBI believed were Hamas members or supporters. Ten years later, during a deposition regarding that meeting, Awad claimed he could not recall whether he had been there.

Hamas is a U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization.

The same Nihad Awad standing behind and to the right of President George W. Bush, six days after 9-11-2001, as he proclaims “Islam is a religion of peace” in a mosque.

And how, you may ask, does that happen? At the behest of Grover Norquist, personal adviser to the Republican Party!

So it is not just a Hillary/Democrat thing, we are watching you Paul Ryan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Islamic State: “Remaining and Expanding?”

ISIS renews its call on Canadian Muslims to kill disbelievers in Canada

The Death of Europe: Is Paris the New Normal?

Extinguishing Christianity from the Middle East

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.

Map Of Radical Mosques in the U.S.

/in , , , , , /by

There are more than 80 radical mosques are in the U.S., according to the Clarion Project, a non-profit group that describes itself as “dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamist extremism.”

Using Clarion’s definitions, The Daily Caller News Foundation has mapped these radical mosques in an effort to aid readers seeking to understand the extent of radical Islamic voices in this country.

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.

“Islamist extremists have developed a sophisticated network of interconnected organizations across American,” according to Clarion. “The common thread among these organizations is their ideology of political Islam, which aspires to implement sharia governance and to establish a global Islamic caliphate.”

The FBI declined to tell TheDCNF if the nation’s top law enforcement agency has a similar list.

The map includes 83 – or nearly 4 percent – of the 2,106 mosques in the United States as of 2010.

Mosques from Clarion Project’s list were excluded if TheDCNF could not verify their addresses. These include Islamist communes like Islamberg in New York.

Several mosques on the Clarion Project’s list stand out.

  • Dar al-Hijrah, located just outside Washington in Falls Chruch, Virginia, for example, was the place of worship for two of the 9/11 hijakers. This mosque’s present Imam, Shaker Elsayed, described Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna’s teachings as “the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life.” The Brotherhood “seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally,” according to the Clarion Project.

Source

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Migrants Are Killing Christian Migrants

Barack Obama Blocked 75% of Strikes on the Islamic State

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.