Tag Archive for: slaughter

Loretta Lynch Must Go

/in , , , , /by

lorettalynchgraphicOn Thursday, Dec. 5, 2015, Attorney General Loretta Lynch threw down the gauntlet in a speech before the Muslim Advocate’s 10th Anniversary dinner in Arlington, Virginia.  Speaking just one day after Muslim terrorists, Sayed Rizwan Farook and his Saudi wife, Tashfeen Malik, murdered fourteen innocent people in an unprovoked terror attack on the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, Lynch said, “On behalf of our nation’s Justice Department, I am grateful to count you as partners in our work to promote tolerance, to ensure public safety, and to protect civil rights (emphasis added)…”

She went on to say, “Since becoming Attorney General last February, I have heard from Arab Americans and Muslims who say they feel uneasy about their relationship with the United States government.  Some feel that they have not been afforded the full rights of citizenship.  Others are worried about the safety of their families, communities, and places of worship.  And, too often, Muslims and Arab Americans have told me that they feel as though they are treated by their fellow citizens, by their government, and especially by those of us in law enforcement as though it were ‘us versus them.’  That is unacceptable, and it is inconsistent with what America is all about.”

So if a few Muslims are worried about the safety of their families, their communities, and their places of worship, what is that compared to the fear and dread that radical Islamists have spread among the hundreds of millions of peace-loving people of Europe and North America?  And if Muslims and Arab-Americans feel as if they are the victims of an “us versus them” political and social environment, just who do they think created that atmosphere?  It is not Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims who have rejected Muslims, it s Muslims who have come to our country and have refused to assimilate into our culture.  Not only have they not assimilated into our culture, they have let it be known that it is their intention to obliterate our culture and our form of government from the face of the Earth.

Lynch went on to say, “Muslims and Arab Americans have helped to build and strengthen our nation.  They have served as police officers, teachers, civic leaders and soldiers – strengthening their local communities and safeguarding their country.  And the cooperation of Muslim and Arab-American communities has been absolutely essential in identifying, and preventing, terrorist threats.  We must never lose sight of this.  And, as we work to create a brighter and more prosperous future, we must not fail to heed the lessons of our past.”

No one but an Obama administration toady could ever stand up in public and say with a straight face that Muslims and Arab-Americans have helped to “build and strengthen” our nation, have played a vital role in “identifying and preventing terrorist threats,” and have worked to “build a brighter and more prosperous future” for all Americans.

When asked to comment on the Obama administration’s attitude toward anti-Muslim rhetoric in the days since the Paris attacks, she said, “My message to the Muslim community is that we

stand with you in this.  Where we do see anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions turning into violence, we do take action… We have charged 225 defendants with hate crimes over the last six years… most of those in the last three years.  Since 9/11 we’ve had over 1,000 investigations into anti-Muslim hatred, including rhetoric and bigoted actions, with over forty-five prosecutions…”

She went on to say, “I think it’s important, however, that as we again talk about the importance of free speech, we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American.  They are not who we are, they’re not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.

Looking directly into the camera, she said, “My greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all the American people, is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence…  When it comes to combating these heinous crimes, our message is simple: If you engage in violence fueled by bigotry – no matter the object or nature of your hate – we will bring you to justice.

Lynch challenged her Muslim audience, saying, “Often, you learn of incidents before law enforcement and I encourage you to report these incidents to the Justice Department.  I assure you: each and every report of a potential hate crime is taken seriously and, as our record of recent activity makes clear, we will investigate and prosecute violations of federal law whenever we can.  Last year, two Tennessee men were sentenced to more than 14 years in prison after pleading guilty to spray painting swastikas and the words ‘white power’ on a mosque – and then starting a fire that destroyed the mosque.  And last month, an Illinois man was sentenced to one year in prison after he pleaded guilty to sending a threatening e-mail to a mosque.”

Either the attorney general has failed to notice that, in recent years, nearly every act of violence stemming from hateful rhetoric has originated in the Muslim community, or she was delivering a stern message to the Muslim community that, unless they behave themselves, they would find themselves praying to Allah five times a day from behind prison walls.  However, being Barack Obama’s principal legal henchman, it’s pretty obvious to all concerned, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that her thinly-veiled threats were directed toward non-Muslims.

Reaction to the attorney general’s threat was swift and predictable.  Radio talk show host Joe Walsh, a former congressman from Illinois’ 8th Congressional District (suburban Chicago) produced the below YouTube video describing exactly how he feels about Muslims and challenging the attorney general to have him arrested.

In his video, he said, “You come out today and you say you’re going to prosecute Americans who use anti-Muslim speech.  That doesn’t happen in this country.   I can say what I want about Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  I think Islam has a real “fricking” problem, alright?  There’s a cancer in Islam.  And if they’re not gonna’ learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.

“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that?  Then throw me in jail.  Here… I’ll give you a perfect opportunity.  I think Islam is evil.  I think Islam’s got a huge problem.  I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values.  I don’t want ‘em here.  So, what?… you’re worried about a backlash against Muslims?”

“Fourteen Americans were killed three days ago and you come up the next day and say you’re greatest fear is anti-Muslim backlash.  Well, you know what?  I hope there is a backlash.  There should be a backlash.  I’m going to encourage a backlash.  And you know what, Loretta Lynch?  If that bothers you, prosecute me.  Throw me in jail.”

In a written follow-up, Walsh argued that “most Muslims around the world are (either) terrorists, support terrorism, and/or support Sharia Law.”  He went on to say, “Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed.  If ‘moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”

Directing his final words to Loretta Lynch, he said, “Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that edges toward violence?  Go ahead and prosecute me.  I dare you.”

As sharply divided as liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, are on these issues, one wonders how those liberals and Democrats who support the Obama administration’s policies on Muslim immigration would react when posed with a problem that brings the question of life-or-death a bit closer to home.

Since the San Bernardino attack, conservatives have attempted to put the Muslim immigration question into a context that even liberals can understand.  For example, on June 13, 2014, CNN reported that more than 4,000 pounds of rib-eye and other fresh beef, produced by the Fruitland American Meat Company in Jackson, Missouri, were subject to recall because of a fear that the meats could contain mad cow disease.  The meat in question was distributed by the Whole Foods distribution center in Connecticut, which services all of New England, one restaurant in New York, and one restaurant in Kansas City, Missouri.

With the understanding that northeastern liberals and Democrats appear quite willing to go along with Obama’s plan to import more than 100,000 Muslims each year because of the belief that only five out of every 100 (5%) of the world’s Muslim population are radicalized, how much of the suspect meat would New Englanders purchase if they were assured that no more than 5% of the meat was contaminated with mad cow disease?  If, as an inducement, Whole Foods reduced the price of prime filet mignon and rib-eye steaks to 50ȼ per pound, would New Englanders and New Yorkers be willing to take a chance?

For the Obama base, the low information voters of America, conservatives have restated the question in terms that even they might understand.  They were asked, “If you were presented with a bowl of 100 M&Ms and told that five of the 100 pieces were toxic (poisonous), how many pieces of candy would you eat?”  Even they, accustomed as they are to accepting “freebies,” would have sense enough to decline.

When Loretta Lynch was before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation in April 2015, most conservatives held high hopes that she would be a welcome change from her lawless predecessor, Eric Holder.  However, all hope were dashed when Lynch refused to assure senators that, under her leadership, even the president of the United States would be required to obey the law and to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  What a disappointment she has been.  She must go.

And as for me, I’m with Joe Walsh.  If I can’t criticize radical Islamists, then come get me.

San Bernardino: Another Muslim Slaughter, Another Cover-Up

/in , , , , /by

In FrontPage today I explain why mainstream media reporters don’t even need to show up for work. They can file their stories beforehand.

Syed Rizwan Malik

Syed Rizwan Malik

The San Bernardino jihad massacre is the latest jihad atrocity, but it’s just like the last one, and just like the next one: it has played out in exactly the same way that the last jihad atrocity did, and in just the same way that the next one will play out as well. Mass killings by “radicalized” Muslims are followed by earnest statements from the President and the mainstream media that we must not rush to judgment, that the motive of the shooters was unclear, that we need gun control, that we need to address the real threat of climate change, that Muslims fear “Islamophobia,” and so on. It’s always a new massacre, but it’s always the same story.

Surely by now mainstream media reporters don’t even need to roll out of bed to file their stories. How much legwork does it take to write, “Syed Farook and Tashfeen Melik murdered 14 people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino; yes, Farook was a devout Muslim, but authorities are searching for a motive; moderate Muslims condemned the attack and said they feared anti-Muslim backlash”? Change the names and date, change the number of victims and the place, and they’ve filed that story dozens of times. They can just take out their last New York Times or CNN piece on the Paris jihad attack, change the details, hit send, and pour a cold one.

A few years ago, a couple of writers for Salon.com showed up at a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on which I was speaking, and were deservedly ridiculed after they were caught writing their story before the panel had even begun. But you can’t really blame them for trying to save some time: their story was going to be the same “Racist Bigoted Islamophobes Say Egregiously Evil Things” no matter what anyone on the panel really did say, so why not get a head start on the writing?

Tashfeen Malik

Tashfeen Malik

With San Bernardino, and every jihad attack, it works the same way. The media trims the facts to fit the Procrustean bed of their narrative, such that, in this case, most of the American public will likely never hear that San Bernardino jihad murderer Syed Farook had been “radicalized”; or that he had been in touch with Muslims being investigated for jihad terror activity; or that he spent his free time in the mosque, memorizing the Qur’an.

If they do hear about such things at all from the mainstream media, their significance won’t be explained: no one on CBS or NBC or ABC or PBS or NPR or in the New York Times or the Washington Post will remind his or her audience that the Islamic State and other jihad groups consider themselves to be at war with the United States, and have explicitly and repeatedly called upon Muslims in the U.S. to commit mass murder of American civilians. Would anyone have wondered about the motive of a German national who slaughtered fourteen Americans on U.S. soil in 1943? Of course no one would have, but that was a long time ago. Now we are engaged in a great ignored war, a war that only one side is fighting, a war in which enemy combatants are tried in civilian courts – as if they were criminals, not enemy soldiers — by a government that desperately wishes to maintain the illusion that there is no war at all.

This play has played to rapt audiences in Boston and Fort Hood, and all over the country. It is so familiar that all the players hit their marks with the nonchalant and unthinking precision of the overtrained. But it needs to close. The endless proclamations after every jihad attack, that it has nothing to do with Islam, and that Muslims are the real victims, are not only ludicrous; they’re offensive. The mainstream media and the Obama Administration have insulted the intelligence of Americans long enough. Their denial and willful ignorance are endangering us all, as they continue to behave after every jihad attack that their primary duty is not protecting Americans, but protecting Islam’s image.

San Bernardino has so far been just another production of this dreary little play, but it still has a chance to be much more than that. If Americans see the real lessons of San Bernardino and no longer accept this nonsense we are being fed; if we demand of our elected officials and presidential candidates that they must speak the truth about this threat we are facing, and formulate realistic ways to counter it, or their political careers will be over; if we no longer accept this endless portrayal of Muslims as beleaguered victims of “Islamophobia” after every murder of non-Muslims by Muslims – then San Bernardino could be a defining moment.

But for that to happen, people would have to be informed as to the true parameters of this issue, and those who are charged with informing them are instead doing all they can to spread disinformation. So San Bernardino will fade in memory once it is replaced by the next jihad carnage. And that one won’t have anything to do with Islam, either. Journalists can get their stories ready now, so that when that carnage comes, they can just fill in the requisite blanks and be the first to file. In fact, they better have five or ten jihad attack story templates ready. They’re going to need them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuters: “Muslim Americans fear demonization of Islam after mass shooting”

Chris Hayes, MSNBC absolutely baffled as to SB jihadi murderer’s motive

‘I pledge allegiance to the Islamic State’

/in , , , , /by

“MASS SHOOTING: San Bernardino female attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS, officials say,” by Vince Cestone, CNN, December 3, 2015:

UPDATE – Friday 7:31 AM As the San Bernardino attack was happening, investigators believe the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN.

The posting was by Malik made on an account with a different name, according to one U.S. official. The officials did not explain how they knew Malik made the post.

WATCH the above video to hear a first responder’s account of the shooting, as well as the full Thursday night press conference.

SAN BERNARDINO (CNN, KRON) — Syed Rizwan Farook — who along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out the San Bernardino shooting massacre — apparently was radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

Farook’s apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said. The names of the victims were released Thursday evening.

Still, the radicalization wasn’t necessarily the only driver behind the carnage, as workplace grievances might have also played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had “mixed motives.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Video: Robert Spencer on Hannity: the SB jihad attack and jihad denial

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of ABC News.

San Bernardino Shooting: Political Correctness Kills, Again

/in , , , , /by

There was a tragic incident of climate change Wednesday, or so Barack Obama might say. As I was driving home that evening listening to the still sparse details on the San Bernardino shooting, the news report informed that there were two dead suspects, a man and woman. So I already knew more than the authorities were telling: I figured the two assailants were non-white, almost certainly Muslim. After all, if the police knew their sexes, they knew what they looked like. And if they’d been white, it would have been announced right away.

You see, I know the drill. When the suspects are non-white, politically correct authorities will never mention it for fear of condemnation. “Why are you calling attention to their race or ethnicity?!” they’ll be asked. Of course, they didn’t mind calling attention to their sex. In the leftist upside-down world, all characteristics are equal, but some are more equal than others. Really, the more consistently PC way of describing the terrorists would have been as “two sentient bipeds.” Because, you know, four legs good, two legs bad.

Then there’s the following, from CBS Los Angeles:

A man who has been working in the [Redlands] area [of terrorist Syed Farook’s home] said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said.  “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”

Does it occur to this man that, in a way, he has blood on his hands? We don’t have to ask if it occurs to the media, academia and entertainment culture-killers who conditioned him to be politically correct that they also have blood on theirs. They probably blame the San Bernardino (SB) climate-change incident on white microaggressions.

It’s not that liberals don’t engage in profiling; it’s just that they do it all wrong. MSNBC wasted no time profiling the terrorists as possible pro-lifers, pointing out that a Planned Butcherhood facility was “just a few blocks away.” And recently, liberal senator Sherrod Brown averred that white males were a bigger threat to America than Muslim jihadists (this may be true about white males such as Sherrod Brown).

Downtown Brown was, of course, talking about mass shootings such as Columbine and Sandy Hook. He completely ignored that such incidents aren’t classified as terrorism for the simple reason that they’re not terrorism; they’re not generally perpetrated in the name of a cause but are the work of deranged minds. But no matter. The whole point is based on a lie to begin with.

As I reported last year using statistical analysis, it is a myth that an inordinate percentage of mass shooters are white.

In reality, mass shooters’ racial and ethnic backgrounds (insofar as major groups go) reflect the demographics of the overall U.S. population almost perfectly; the only exception is Asians, who, interestingly, are somewhat overrepresented. But, hey, the media have their narrative. And they’re stickin’ to it.

“Narrative,” you may note, was once used mainly in reference to fiction. I suppose it still is. And perhaps that’s a better name for our Teleprompter-reading “reporters”: narrators.

This brings us to the other Teleprompter reader, our Narrator in Chief. Obama called for gun control soon after news of the SB shooting broke, when what’s really needed is immigration control. But then Mr. Hussein couldn’t import any more refujihadis (hat tip: an American Thinker reader), who we know for a fact are coming in with the Mideastern Muslim migrants because the latter cannot be vetted. But, you know, eggs and omelets.

Obama never feels constrained by facts, but he probably assumed that, whoever the SB assailants were and whatever their motives, the guns just had a mind of their own. Perhaps he ought to recruit Little Lord Fauntleroy’s recessive-gene twin, Piers Morgan, to tell us how much lower gun-control poster boy Britain’s murder rate is than ours. Except that New Hampshire — with a higher gun-ownership rate than the U.K. — has a lower homicide rate. This is despite it, frighteningly, being just chock full of those dreaded white males (N.H. is 91.3 percent non-Hispanic white, versus 62.1 percent for the U.S. overall). And Dr. Thomas Sowell tells us there just might be a connection there.

Returning to profiling, there are other connections we could make. I am a member of one of the most profiled group in the nation: males. Police view males far more suspiciously than females because males commit an inordinate amount of crime. But if this is just, is it not also just to apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of crime? And if so-called “racial profiling” is “racist” and is verboten, isn’t sex profiling sexist? Shouldn’t it be eliminated with the same vigor?

Oh, yeah, four legs good, two legs bad.

Profiling is simply a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information in situations in which obtaining more information is not feasible. In the realm of policing and personal safety, it enables us to determine the probability that a given individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent. And we all engage in profiling, mind you, such as when avoiding a group of rough-hewn young men walking down the street or being distrustful of a sleazy-looking used-car salesman. Doctors do it when assessing what conditions and diseases a patient is likely to have (Pima Indians have the nation’s highest diabetes rate; blacks have high rates of prostate cancer). Children do it when being wary of petting strange dogs.

And then childishly destructive people tell us we should do it in every way — but one.

We can profile people based on sex, age, the car they drive, dress and even race. For instance, police may stop a white man driving through a bad inner-city neighborhood in an expensive car, figuring the probability is relatively high that he’s there to buy drugs. But this willingness to “racially profile” goes out the window when the matter is politically favored groups. That, my friends, is unjust discrimination. That is prejudice.

And it’s dangerous.

This aversion to politically incorrect “racial profiling” is even more ridiculous when the matter is Muslims. Note, low-info narrators, “Muslim” is not a race. It refers to a group defined by a set of beliefs, or doctrines. And since actions originate with thoughts, what you believe matters and is the best predictor of behavior. If you want to find a good prospective soldier or UFC cage fighter, for instance, you don’t look among the Amish.

Referring to the SB terrorism and pushing gun control, the NY Daily News’ Thursday cover reads, “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS.” No, He’s not. For He gives us free will, and you liberals are using yours wrongly and destructively. And you won’t fix it, either, because you’re spiritually diseased.

It will only be fixed by a sea-change in American culture, an about-face where political correctness becomes so stigmatized that exhibiting it means character and career destruction in the same way that being politically incorrect does today.

Political correctness kills. And for America to survive, it must die.

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

California Shooting: The Debate Starts Here

/in , , , , , /by

With the investigation of the California shooting in its primary stages, what we do know about this horrific attack is that it was highly planned. The shooters were prepared: in dress — they donned “assault-style clothing” (described as dark, tactical garments) and body armor; with weapons — they chose AK-47 Kalashnikov semi-automatic rifles (or the equivalent) plus pistols; and with ammo – they were carrying multiple magazines and had planted explosive devices resembling pipe bombs.

Without ruling out other motives, law-enforcement officers say the facts of this case point to a terrorist attack. What we do know is that Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the shooters, “was very religious,”according to his father.

He had travelled to Saudi Arabia and returned with this wife, who he had reportedly met online.

A neighbor said Farook lived with his wife, mother and baby and “sounded really happy. I did notice there were lots of packages being dropped off and he was in the garage working on stuff.”

Larson had assumed they were Christmas packages, perhaps unaware of Farook’s religious beliefs. She says in retrospect she wonders if they were the munitions and other elements he needed for the attack.

Fellow workers say Farook was quiet and didn’t socialize with them. Those same workers had recently made a baby shower for him sometime after his now six-month-old child was born.  In a list of workers and their salaries at the facility where Farook worked, he is listed as an environmental specialist with a salary of over $50,000.

Less is known about his wife, Tashfeen Malik, Farook’s accomplice and fellow shooter.

In the wake of the attack, U.S. President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley all immediately called for gun-control laws, not venturing into the territory of what makes another human being want to cause so much death and destruction with a gun.

Republican candidates initially offered prayers for the victims and their families, as well as law-enforcement officers in harm’s way. At a speaking engagement, Ben Carson pointedly asked, “What happened to our country?  Where did that come from?  I will tell you where it did not come from.  It did not come from our Judeo-Christian values.  It came from something else.”

If, indeed, the shootings turn out to be an Islamist terror attack, Carson’s questions need to be answered. The current administration’s policy of denying the ideological underpinning of the world’s current battle with worldwide terror is as dangerous as it is ridiculous.

Having an unidentified elephant in the room, a lurking “that-who-will-not-be-named” presence wreaking havoc in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people does not make it go away. On the contrary, it only empowers it.

By limiting the conversation to the voices of those recruiting and building a movement fueled by Islamist ideology, we have taken away one of our prime weapons to fight it: Our ability to refute it and offer an alternative.

Young people, possibly 28-year-old Farook and his 27-year-old wife, do not get radicalized in a vacuum. To borrow a common proverb, it takes a village. With the advent of modern technology and social media, that village has become global.

The fact that Islamist extremists have managed to influence and terrorize so much of the world is a testament to that fact.

Clarion Project is dedicated to having that conversation.

Radicalization in mosques is a number-one factor in swaying the opinion of young Muslims. See Clarion’s Islamist Organizations in America project and see if there is a radical mosque near you.

Watch the trailer below to our upcoming short film “By the Numbers: The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions and Demographics.” Look for the release of the film on December 10.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS Credits Itself on Twitter for San Bernardino Massacre, Threatens More

France Shuts Down Three Radical Mosques

Al-Aqsa Mosque Preacher: West Carried Out Paris Attacks

FBI Tracking 48 ISIS Suspects 24/7 in America

By the Numbers: Watch Trailer to Clarion’s New Short Film

Father of San Bernardino shooting suspect: Son a “very religious” Muslim

/in , , , /by

“He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.” Not that this has anything to do with…

“Father of Calif. shooting suspect speaks out,” by Nancy Dillon and Denis Slattery, New York Daily News, December 2, 2015:

One of the suspects in Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. has been identified as Syed Farook, according to reports….

A man who identified himself as Farook’s father told the Daily News his son worked as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels….

“He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

RELATED ARTICLE: San Bernardino: NBC News reports suspect as ‘Syed Farook’

Obama in Paris on Muslim slaughter: “This just doesn’t happen in other countries”

/in , , , , /by

Has he already forgotten the Paris jihad massacre?

Note also what he says at the end about the importance of avoiding “demonizing organizations like Planned Parenthood.” This from a man who has never hesitated to demonize his opponents, among them those who speak the truth about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

Video thanks to the Washington Free Beacon.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump under fire for saying “there’s something going on” with Islam

Video: Muslim asylum seekers in Italy approve of Paris jihad attacks

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

Why Muslim Migrants Always = Terrorism

/in , , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

It cannot tell you about the future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

The Expanding Threat Posed by ISIS

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

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

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

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

/in , , , , , /by

The format of the Democratic debate was altered at the last minute to give each candidate time to give a statement about the Paris terror attacks at the beginning of the debate.

Speaking first, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.” However, it remains to be seen how Sanders would lead this fight since he advocates a non-interventionist approach and says that theU.S. should only have a very limited supporting role in the fight in Syria. Sanders believes that the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly identified the enemy as jihadists, rejecting the non-descript terminology used by the Obama Administration who calls them “violent extremists.” Clinton made no sweeping promises as Sanders. Rather she said she would be laying out “in detail what I think we need to do to with our friends and allies — in Europe and elsewhere — to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorisim.” She stressed that “all the other issues we want to deal with depend on us being secure and strong.”

In his opening statement, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that the events in Paris spoke to the new face of “conflict and warfare” in the 21st century, and as such, required “new thinking, fresh approaches.” O’Malley remarked that “we have a lot of work to do to better prepare out nation and to better lead this world into this new century.”

Polling shows that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated last night’s Democratic presidential debate, particularly on national security.

Public Policy Polling came out with the first post-debate poll that showed 67% of Democratic primary voters declaring Clinton the overall winner of the second presidential primary debate and 75% saying they most trust her on national security of the three candidates. The following is a summary of the national security positions taken by each candidate during the debate:

Hillary Clinton

She aligned herself closely with President Obama throughout the debate but presented three areas of difference on Islamist extremism: Identification of the enemy; support for Syrian rebels and an implicit criticism of President Obama for suggesting that “containment” of the Islamic State is a sign of success.

Right off the bat, Clinton repeatedly used Islamic terminology to define the enemy as “jihadist.” She also seemed to understand that the root of violent jihad is in the Islamist ideology, which she emphasized is not subscribed to by most Muslims. She described the adversary as “Islamists who are jihadists,” but she did not discuss whether she believes that “moderate Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood should be embraced as allies against “jihadists” like the Islamic State.

The second point of difference came when she was asked about President Obama’s claim that the Islamic State is “contained” shortly before the Paris attacks. While Clinton avoided criticizing the president directly, she rejected containment as a measure of success, saying it is impossible to contain a group like the Islamic State and only its defeat is acceptable.

The third point of difference was on Syria. She explained that she urged President Obama to equip moderate Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war to prevent jihadists from creating a safe haven. Clinton believes that developing allies on the ground in Syria would have given us a valuable ally today.

Clinton also suggested a tougher approach towards the Gulf states and Turkey. She said it is time for them to “make up their mind about where they stand” on the fight against jihadism.

On the topic of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that preceded the rise of the Islamic State and the collapse of Iraqi security forces, Clinton said that the withdrawal was in compliance with a U.S.-Iraqi agreement signed by the Bush Administration. After U.S. forces left, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decimated the Iraqi security forces with his sectarianism and cronyism. This, combined with the civil war in Syria and other regional variables, enabled the Islamic State to seize large parts of Iraq.

She defended the NATO military intervention in Libya to topple Gaddafi by pointing out the large amount of American blood he had on his hands from supporting terrorism. Clinton also mentioned how the Libyans elected moderate leaders after he fell. She addressed the civil war in Libya by saying the U.S. should provide more support to the current moderate Libyan government.

On the topic of Syrian refugees, Clinton said she agrees in principle with bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. (as O’Malley advocates) but only if they are completely vetted. Her tough language on vetting suggested that she envisions overhauling the process to become stricter, but she did not present a specific proposal.

Unlike Sanders, she would not commit to cutting the defense budget but promised to closely review military spending. She cited Chinese moves in the South China Sea and the increased aggressiveness of Russia, such as its broadcasting of a new drone submarine that can be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.

Clinton is currently the frontrunner by a mile. She leads nationally with 55% in an average of polls; leads Iowa with 54%; is in second behind Sanders in New Hampshire with 43% and leads in South Carolina with 65%. You can read our factsheet on Clinton’s positions related to Islamism here.

Bernie Sanders

As we mentioned in our coverage of the recent Democratic forum, Sanders views the threat as being rooted in an Islamic ideology but—unlike Clinton—advocates a non-interventionist approach. His argument is that the U.S. should only have a very limited supporting role because the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims. He again stated that the fight with the Islamic State is part of a “war for the soul of Islam.”

Sanders rejected a strategy of pursuing regime change, apparently referring to the Syrian dictatorship and the removal of the Gaddafi regime in Libya when Clinton was Secretary of State. He cited U.S.-backed regime changes in places like Chile and Guatemala as counterproductive mistakes.

He spoke out in favor of cuts to the defense budget. He argued that U.S. military spending is far too high and that much of the excess costs are not even necessary for fighting terrorism.

Sanders is currently in second place overall. He is the runner-up nationally with 33%; is in second place in Iowa with 30%; leads in New Hampshire with 44% and is in second place in South Carolina with 17%. You can read our factsheet on Sanders’ positions related to Islamism here.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

At the recent Democratic forum, O’Malley embraced the camp that believes Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of political grievances against the U.S. He did not repeat his ludicrous claim that U.S. troops overseas and the operation of Guantanamo Bay are the chief reasons for the strength of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

However, during the Saturday night debate, he acknowledged that the threat comes from an Islamic ideology. Unlike Clinton who defined the enemy as “jihadism,” O’Malley defined it as “radical jihadists”—which begs the question: What is a “non-radical jihadist?”

In describing where the Islamic State threat emerged from, O’Malley pointed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and especially the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He said that many of ISIS’ current members used to be a part of the Iraqi military until we fired them. There is truth to that statement, but it seems to suggest that O’Malley remains committed to the belief that the “root cause” of the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorists are mistreatment and political grievances, rather than ideology.

O’Malley continued to embrace a non-interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. should not be trying to overthrow dictators. He then seemed to contradict himself when he said the U.S. should take the lead in fighting “evil.”  He said his “new” foreign policy would be one of “engagement” and “identifying threats” as they gather.

On several occasions, O’Malley cited the need for human intelligence sources as part of his strategy—but that’s nothing new and it’s not a strategy. Everyone agrees that more human intelligence is needed.

He reiterated his support for bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., up from the current 10,000 that President Obama plans to bring in. He did not address how they would be vetted and taken care of, especially when a poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% feel positively or somewhat positively towards the Islamic State.

O’Malley is in last place among the three remaining candidates. He is in last with 3% nationally; last in Iowa with 5%; last in New Hampshire with 3% and last in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on O’Malley’s positions related to Islamism here.

You can read the Clarion Project‘s comprehensive factsheets on each party’s presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism by clicking here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin: GOP Debate

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

Why France?

/in , , , , , /by

In the wake of the terrorist attacks which killed at least 129 in Paris on Friday, people are asking why France in particular was targeted by the Islamic State. The Islamic State detests the entire Western world and seeks to destroy it and replace it with a global Islamist caliphate. Yet it prioritizes which countries to attack and when.

The reasons listed here are by way of explanation from the Islamic State’s point of view, to help our readers understand. They are not to be taken as a justification of the Islamic State’s actions, which ultimately are caused by their hateful extremist ideology.

Here are the top five reasons why the Islamic State attacked France and Paris in particular.

France has been fighting the Islamic State and other Islamists.

French President Francois Hollande led his country into airstrikes against the Islamic State, bombing targets in Syria for the past two months. It was the first country in Europe to join America in bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and has so far been the only European country to join airstrikes against ISIS in Syria.

France also led the fight against Islamists in North Africa, it was French soldiers that liberated Timbuktu from Islamist insurgents belonging to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in Mali.

The Islamic State is therefore fighting those who fight it the most, in an effort to persuade the civilian population of France that the war is about French foreign policy and not about a global Islamist Caliphate and to cow them into submission through terror.

France has specifically named the Islamist ideology as the problem.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said after the Charlie Hebdo attacks France is at war with radical Islam. The French Ambassador to America clarified afterwards, saying, “We are at war with radical Islam. It means that right now… Islam is breeding radicalism which is quite dangerous for everybody.” Not only has France named the problem but they are taking active steps against the Islamist ideology within France, not just against groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but also against groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which promote the ideology of Islamism that leads to violent extremism.

France is standing up for its values and seeking to integrate Muslims

Prime Minister Manuel Valls explicitly stated, “We seek to establish a model of Islam that is fully integrated, fully compatible with the values of the Republic.”  This is anathema to ISIS as they cannot countenance an integrated Islam which operates peacefully within a broader society. France is proactively attempting to integrate Muslims, which, if successful, would destroy the “Islam vs the world” narrative peddled by the Islamic  State.

Paris represents the Enlightenment values of Western civilization.

The Islamic State decried the city as “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe — Paris.” Paris is at the center of European and Western fashion, culture and literature and one of the great historical cities of European civilization.

France is where much of the enlightenment took place and where modern ideas about citizenship, human rights and the separation between religion and state were first articulated and formed.

For an Islamic State obsessed with symbolism, an attack on Paris is an attack on European/Western enlightenment values.

The Islamic State is obsessed with history and honor.

France is an old country with a long history. The Islamic State has a laundry list of grievances against France going back a thousand years. ISIS also hates Europe in general for its colonial past.

It blames France, in particular, for the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the Caliphate following the First World War.  France was one of the leading countries involved in the crusades in the 11th century, and it is where the early Islamic Caliphate’s advance into Europe was halted by French ruler Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732.

The Islamic State is obsessed with seeing itself as the revived Muslim Caliphate. It is therefore essential to its worldview that Europe’s old colonial powers are defeated. For similar reasons, ISIS has long threatened to conquer Rome, which would represent a symbolic victory over the long defunct Roman Empire.

Without that, the Islamic State cannot claim to avenge the centuries old grievances with which it is obsessed and thus cannot fulfil its claims to restore the ‘lost honor’ of the immah.

RELATED ARTICLES:

50,000 Europeans Fighting for ISIS, Says Counter-Terror Chief

Belgian Government Admits It Has Lost Control of No-Go Zone

ISIS Agitprop Video Shows Training of the Next Generation

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, Please consider our grave concerns

/in , , , , /by

TO: The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Cc. The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, The Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety, The Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health, The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change-

Dear Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,

Your election promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada by the end of 2015 may not be attainable, and no decent, security-loving Canadian will be upset – in fact we will all understand – if you need to postpone this laudable goal to help the truly downtrodden, by supporting them with food, medications, education and other infrastructure systems – in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

We all understand how impossible it is properly to screen for health and security – such a vast population within an unrealistic and overly-ambitious time-frame. You will not lose face with your electorate if you revise your stated “election goal”, notably based on Friday’s atrocities in Paris, that included at least one bogus Syrian refugee terrorist-murderer, who arrived – with a Syrian passport – via Greece.

EVEN ONE BOGUS REFUGEE – a jihadist – is a formidable and horrific danger to the health and safety of Canadians. Improperly screened, we may very likely experience horrific terror issues in short order, making the murders of Nathan Cerillo (22 October, 2014) and Patrice Vincent (20 October, 2014) look mild by comparison.

PLEASE KEEP US SAFE IN CANADA.

Unscreened refugees to Germany are bringing with them whooping cough, chicken pox, measles, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other diseases that compromise health and safety systems to the disadvantage of all.

We must be fully prepared in Canada to help every refugee as required, so that they properly and realistically settle and integrate into Canadian society in a comfortable, safe and secure way for all concerned – both in the short- and longer terms.

25,000 represents but a small fraction of people who are suffering from the war in Syria and its attendant displacement. We could help many more than this number if, instead of trying to wade through a bureaucratic and logistical quagmire on both sides of the ocean, we increased our humanitarian aid and helped to set up schools and hospitals in the refugee camps where these people are now located. Surely if you do pull out our current aerial campaign, that money alone could be redirected toward on-the-ground assistance without having to move a huge population into our cities?

We already have affordable housing issues in Ottawa and elsewhere, First Nations residents still living in squalor, and a dreadful homeless problem of our own – that has gone on for decades. Surely it is time to attend to our own, before looking to add severely to our problems on the ground.
From a strictly practical point of view, even if we bring in a few thousand refugees, there are literally hundreds of thousands more who are in dire need of help, especially with winter coming. It makes more sense to help as many as we can where they are instead of bringing only a relatively small number here.

And if we are to bring in refugees, we must first bring in Yazidis, Coptic and Chaldean Christians from Egypt, Kurds and others who are truly under siege and being savagely butchered, such as those women and children in Sinjar, Iraq. They are even refused entry into the very refugee camps that will give them some “measure of safety”. They are also refused applications as refugees by the Shia and Sunni who control their regions. It is these particular groups who most need our protection at this time.

Please reassure all very concerned Canadians that you have our health, safety and security of paramount concern.

 

After Paris bloodbath, Lindsey Graham wants to double funding to bring Syrian ‘migrants’ to U.S.

/in , , , , , , /by

The time for this suicidal idiocy is long past. Graham is a presidential candidate? He ought to be laughed off the presidential debate stage, made to resign from the Senate, and barred from ever holding public office again. And if he succeeds in expanding the “refugee” program, he ought to be made to house the increased numbers of “refugees” in his home and Senatorial office.

states taking syrian migrants cnn

“Forget Paris: Lindsey Graham to double funding for ‘refugees,’” by Leo Hohmann, WND, November 15, 2015:

In the wake of the deadly Paris attacks by ISIS, some GOP presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and even Marco Rubio are calling for an end to Syrian refugee resettlement in the U.S.

Most of the others have been silent or vague on the issue of Syrian refugees – about 2,000 of whom have already arrived in the U.S. despite warnings from the FBI that it’s impossible to vet their backgrounds.

But there is one candidate who is clearly on the record wanting more Syrian Muslims to pour into American cities and towns as “refugees,” despite the fact that at least one of the seven attackers in Paris had a Syrian passport and entered France as a “refugee.”

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who positions himself as a war hawk against ISIS, is co-sponsoring legislation with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to nearly double the amount of funding Washington spends on resettling refugees from Syria.

On the day after the multi-pronged shooting and bombing attacks on Paris, which killed 129 civilians and injured 352, Graham pounced again on the theme that ISIS must be attacked at its core in Syria and destroyed, or there would be more attacks on Western cities.

One of Graham’s favorite talking points is, “If we don’t stop them over there, they are coming over here just as sure as I stand here in front of you.”

It’s curious, then, say his critics, that he would be pushing for escalating the importation of more Islamic refugees into U.S. cities and towns from the world’s most notorious hotbed of jihadist activity – Syria.

Graham’s press secretary did not respond to requests for comment from WND.

Without giving a number, Graham has said the U.S. should accept its “fair share” of Syrian refugees.

His bill provides some insight on what that number might be.

According to the Hill, the legislation doesn’t specify how many Syrian refugees should be accepted into the United States but the amount of funding requested would allow for the resettlement of up to 100,000 Syrian refugees over two years, Leahy’s office said.

Even President Obama has never explicitly said this many Syrians should be allowed into the U.S, although that could be his plan given the vague nature of his statements. Obama’s State Department has called for 10,000 Syrians to be admitted in 2016 and “many more” in 2017….

RELATED ARTICLES:

In first six weeks of FY2016 U.S. resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

Main target in Paris jihad attack: Jewish-owned Bataclan Theater, frequent target of Muslims and BDS groups

U.S. Embassy in Paris turned away Americans who sought shelter there during jihad attacks

In the wake of the Paris slaughter, France says it’s ‘essential’ to combat…climate change

/in , , , , /by

Good they have their priorities straight. Also, it’s much easier to combat a politically correct fiction than a large and looming reality that no one wants to confront. Maybe Bernie Sanders could become President of France.

“France Says It’s ‘Essential’ To Fight Global Warming In Wake Of Paris Terror Attacks,” by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, November 14, 2015:

The United Nations will still hold its global warming summit in Paris this month despite deadly terror attacks that rocked the French capital Friday night. France’s foreign minister says the summit is “essential” to fighting global warming.

.@LaurentFabius says #COP21 is essential to combat #climatechange and that it will take place despite #ParisAttacks https://t.co/mHTZR3hQe8

— UN Climate Action (@UNFCCC) November 14, 2015

Despite the deadly attacks carried out by terrorists linked to the Islamic State, the U.N. has no plans to cancel the summit. U.N. and French officials likely see the summit as too important to cancel even in the wake of these shocking attacks. (RELATED: French Authorities Secure Concert Hall: 12 Freed, 118 Dead)

Indeed, many world leaders believe fighting global warming is a bigger long-term threat than terrorism. Minister Fabius himself warned that “climate change is a threat to peace” and a greater threat than terrorism.

“Terrorism is significant, but naked hunger is as significant as terrorism,” Fabius said in a speech last month. “And the relationship between terrorist activities and naked hunger are obvious. If you look at the vectors of recruitment into terrorist cells, most of the most vulnerable are hunger-prone areas.”

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have also claimed on numerous occasions there is “no greater threat” than global warming facing Americans or the world. “I am convinced that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a changing climate,” Obama said in a speech in August announcing new regulations on power plants.

“The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it,” Obama said in his State of the Union speech in January.

Obama has made signing a global climate treaty a major effort during his second term. The president clearly wants such a treaty to be a part of his legacy. The administration has been touting its environmental policies in recent months, claiming that reducing CO2 emissions could even help avoid violent conflicts like the Syrian civil war.

“It is not a coincidence that immediately prior to the civil war in Syria, the country experienced the worst drought on record,” Kerry said in a recent speech. “Now, I’m not telling you that the crisis in Syria was caused by climate change,” but global warming “clearly made a bad situation a lot worse.”

For those in Paris, however, global warming is not likely on their minds in the wake of Islamic State terror attacks that killed more than 120 people and injured many more Friday night. Gunmen yelling “Allahu Akbar” and “this is for Syria” attacked six locations across the city, using firearms and explosives to inflict destruction and chaos on unsuspecting innocents.

Obama and Kerry are still expected to attend the climate summit November 30th despite the Paris attacks. Though U.N. organizers are still assessing the situation and the security risks of having so many world leaders in one place.

“The government will decide on the action to be taken,” Pierre-Henri Guignard, secretary-general of the climate summit, told the French paper Le Monde. France had plans to set up border checks ahead of the conference, and some 30,000 police officers were set to provide security for the summit. Some 40,000 people are expected to attend the climate summit later this month. The U.N’s top global warming official expressed her “deep pain” in the wake of the attacks, but Christiana Figueres said nothing about cancelling the climate summit that’s expected to yield a global treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota state representative candidate: “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil”

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