The premise, long used by stealth jihadists, is that the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to build mosques in the U.S. and spread Islam. Retired Attorney Publius Huldah recently spoke at an Act for America event in Fayetteville, TN and dismantled that premise.
February 18, 2013 Act for America Chapter in Fayetteville, TN from Publius Huldah on Vimeo.
Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. His numerous articles about Islam have been published in many newspapers and magazines around the world as well as in thousands of Internet magazines, websites and blogs. Imani’s writings can be found on his website Amil Imani.com. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America.
He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and the upcoming thriller Operation Persian Gulf.
As an apostate his mission is to raise the clarion call about the imminent and present danger of expansionistic theocratic Islam. Having witnessed first-hand the horrors and indignity that Islamofascism visits on people it subjugates, he has taken it upon himself to do his part in defeating this ideology of oppression, hate and violence.
When and why did you get involved in the anti-Islamic movement?
My confrontation with Islam actually began early in life when I encountered so many Islamic beliefs and practices. Born in a Muslim family and enveloped by an Islamic society, I needed to find my own identity and path in life. A great many things about Islam clashed with beliefs that I cherished. Namely, those of the longstanding, life loving, and egalitarianism of my ancient pre-Islamic people.
Islamophobia is an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims. Are you an irrational Islamophobe?
All phobias are, by definition, irrational fears. I’m not an Islamophobe, because my “fear” of Islam is completely rational. Avoiding a poisonous snake is a rational fear. Not a phobia. The emotion of fear, when utilized rationally, is of immense value. The key point is that the person, as well as the society, must base their assessment on facts. My assessment of Islam, conclusively supported by indisputable facts, is that it is a dangerous destructive and death-bearing belief system of a long ago savage people that has inflicted and continues to inflict misery and death to people.
Did you receive any threats from Muslims or others because of your involvement in the anti-Islamic movement or because of your apostasy?
Yes. But I ignore them. I will speak the truth about Islam. In no way am I falsely defaming Islam. Islam is own best defamer. Speaking the truth usually entails risks. I’m well aware of that.
Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back on Islam should be given a chance to revert to the religion. For an un-repenting male apostate, death is the punishment and life imprisonment for a female apostate.
“Kill whoever changes his religion.” __Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57
What aspects of Islam do you find most problematic and disturbing?
To answer this question properly, volumes can be written. Just a few keywords should cue you for now. Intolerance, fatalism, institutionalized slavery, injustice, jihadism, oppression of women and non-Muslims, celebration of death, lack of respect for individualism, rejection of freedom and democracy, belief in the theocracy of Allah as ministered by the self-serving clergy who are not accountable to the people, stifling of questioning and inquiry, disallowing all legitimate forms of freedom, and on and on.
Do you think Israel is a good ally in the struggle against Islamization?
Yes, absolutely. Now, Israel is a sovereign state but hardly safe. She is surrounded by nations and peoples who are bent on her destruction. It is tragic that her neighbors and she has not been able to find an equitable way of living side-by-side with mutual respect and in peace. I earnestly hope that ways can be found for a peaceful resolution to this destructive impasse.
Who is a moderate Muslim?
It is wishful thinking on the part of the non-Muslims to believe that one can be a Muslim moderate, given that Islam is radical to its very core. To be a moderate Muslim demands that the person explicitly renounce much of the violent, exclusionary, and radical teachings of the Quran. A moderate Muslim is someone who is Muslim in name only.
A moderate Muslim is not a true Muslim. If in any way and to any extent a person supports Islam or carries out its stone-age precepts, then he/she is Muslim. There is no such as thing as moderate Muslims. There are, however, some moderate people who consider themselves Muslims. These people are not sure who they are. They are in a limbo and suffer from an identity crisis.
Read more at Stop Islamization of the World
by SHARI GOODMAN:
During World War II, in an effort to combat Nazi totalitariansm, men and women of good will in France formed a resistance movement against the Nazis. They came to be known as the Resistance fighters who bravely fought against the tide of the Nazi invasion. Today, once again there is a new growth of totalitarian supremacist ideology in the name of Islam and it is presently receiving protective status under the guise of religion; yet, today its legitamacy is derived on our own soil. The definition of “Islam” is submission and while we may state that we are not at war with Islam, Islam has declared war on us.
Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was the instrumental book that incited Germans to wage war against the Jews and incited millions in surrounding countries to submit to its supremacist totalitarian quest for world domination. Not unlike Mein Kampf, we now have on American soil an Islamic doctrine (Quran) that commands its practioners to wage war against all non-believers until Islam reigns supreme. “Slay the pagans(Christians) wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush” (Surah 9:5) and “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).” (Quran: 8:39) These are just a few of the many passages littered throughout Quranic doctrine with the call for Jihad. Unlike Judeo/Christian doctrine, the violence in Quranic doctrine is instructional violence without a specific time frame. Those of us in today’s Resistance Coalition have been referred to as Islamophobics, bigots, racists, and hatemongers, but in an upside down world it is we who are combatting the hate spewed by a doctrine that places all non-believers in what is referred to in Islam as Dar Al Harb (the House of War). Yes, the Quran segrated the world into Dar Al Islam (the House of Islam) and Dar Al Harb, reserved for all non-Muslims.
For the first time in American history we are providing a sanctuary to a doctrine that seeks our demise. The Quran which commands each Muslim to slay the unbelievers wherever they may find them is housed in every mosque. There are now over 2000 mosques funded by Saudi Arabian oil money throughout the United States. The colonization by the Umma (prosletyzation) is encouraged and financed by oil money and it matters not one iota that not all Muslims are Jihadists. It is a threat and affront to our existence and liberty that we give sanctuary to a dangerous doctrine that calls for our submission at best and slaughter at worst.
Read more: Family Security Matters
Shari Goodman is an educator and a chapter leader for ACT! For America. Her views are her own and are not necessarily representative of ACT! For America. Her columns have appeared in Family Security Matters, Israel Today, and the Los Angeles Times.
(author of Crescent Moon Rising)
Islam, according to newly released data from the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, is now the fastest growing religion in America, verifying President Barack Obama’s claim that the United States is “no longer a Judeo-Christian country.”
How many Muslims now live within the country remains anyone’s guess, since the U.S. Census Bureau neglects to collect data on religious identification. A 2008 study by Cornell University projected that the number of Muslims in America had climbed from 1.6 million in 1995 to 7 million.[i] A U.S. News and World Report survey, which was conducted at the same time, placed the figure at 5 million,[ii] while the Pew Research Center set the number at 2.35 million.
But Pew researchers admit that their survey was not thorough since it neglected to take into account immigrant and poor black Muslims.[iii] What’s more, these researchers only contacted Americans with telephone landlines and failed to take into account the fact that nearly 50% of U.S. residents and age 18-35 and the nearly 100% of the illegal immigrants who communicate exclusively by cell phones.[iv]
Muslim organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), supported the Cornell University projection of 7 million – - based on mosque attendance.[v]
In any case, all demographers agree that throughout the coming decades, the faith of the Prophet Mohammed will continue to impact and transform all aspects of American life: social, political, and economic. They further maintain that, save for a cataclysmic sea-change in population trends, Islam by 2050 will emerge as the nation’s dominant religion.
Read more: Family Security Matters
Europeans do not have a record of religious tolerance, as can be clearly seen in their history of religious wars (16th – 18th centuries) and their appalling Anti-Semitism for 2,000 years, culminating in the Holocaust.
But in the newly emerging Europe after World War II, Western European countries (Britain, France, Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Germany) were determined to create a new European multiculturalism. First, national barriers were coming down as European elites created the European Union (EU), sharing not only a monetary system but also a raft of common values.
As Europe recovered from the devastation of World War II and a new issue, population decline, the floodgates were opened to immigrants and refugees from the less fortunate world, the Middle East, Africa, Indonesia, and India/Pakistan. The newcomers were welcomed by their new governments with monetary assistance, housing, and welfare. What should have been temporary assistance turned into permanent ghettoes, and because the immigrants were not offered a real opportunity to integrate, they became a new constituency for today’s neo-fascist movement, Islamism.
France. Recognizing their well-intentioned generosity has had unforeseen consequences, the French are beginning to reverse their laws. France, which has a huge Muslim population, has learned that locking up Muslim criminals has created a perfect environment for turning French prisons into schools for converting French delinquents to Islam. In September, French police rounded up a number of young terrorists, almost all of them new converts, with plans to sow mayhem and murder in French Jewish neighborhoods. There are also neighborhoods in France so dangerously under the control of Islamists that the French police dare not go there.
England. The UK has been inundated with Muslims from the former British colonies of today’s India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The first generation of these new immigrants wanted nothing more than to become British (and many did, such as Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses). But now the third and fourth generations find themselves in Muslim ghettoes, undereducated, too long on welfare, and easily seduced by Islamist clerics and operatives into going to Pakistan or Yemen to “learn Arabic” and ready themselves to become suicide bombers. London has already survived one huge suicide bombing attack on their metro system and has scurried to prevent an encore. Now, finally, despite EU law, they have deported some of their worst Islamists to the United States, where they have been wanted for terrorism and murder.
Read more: Family Security Matters
FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributing Editor Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman is a historian, lecturer, and author of How Do You Know That? You may contact her at Lfarhat102@aol.com or www.globalthink.net.
As new figures show ‘white flight’ from cities is rising, one Londoner writes a
provocative personal piece about how immigration has drastically changed the
borough where she has lived for 17 years
Multicultural: the shops in Acton Vale, west London Photo: Jeff Gilbert
By Jane Kelly:
“When you go swimming, it’s much healthier to keep your whole body completely covered, you know.” The Muslim lady behind the counter in my local pharmacy has recently started giving me advice like this. It’s kindly meant and I’m always glad to hear her views because she is one of the few people in west London where I live who talks to me.
The streets around Acton, which has been my home since 1996, have taken on a new identity. Most of the shops are now owned by Muslims and even the fish and chip shop and Indian takeaway are Halal. It seems that almost overnight it’s changed from Acton Vale into Acton Veil.
Of the 8.17 million people in London, one million are Muslim, with the majority of them young families. That is not, in reality, a great number. But because so many Muslims increasingly insist on emphasising their separateness, it feels as if they have taken over; my female neighbours flap past in full niqab, some so heavily veiled that I can’t see their eyes. I’ve made an effort to communicate by smiling deliberately at the ones I thought I was seeing out and about regularly, but this didn’t lead to conversation because they never look me in the face.
I recently went to the plainly named “Curtain Shop” and asked if they would put some up for me. Inside were a lot of elderly Muslim men. I was told that they don’t do that kind of work, and was back on the pavement within a few moments. I felt sure I had suffered discrimination and was bewildered as I had been there previously when the Muslim owners had been very friendly. Things have changed. I am living in a place where I am a stranger.
I was brought up in a village in Staffordshire, and although I have been in London for a quarter of a century I have kept the habit of chatting to shopkeepers and neighbours, despite it not being the done thing in metropolitan life. Nowadays, though, most of the tills in my local shops are manned by young Muslim men who mutter into their mobiles as they are serving. They have no interest in talking to me and rarely meet my gaze. I find this situation dismal. I miss banter, the hail fellow, well met chat about the weather, or what was on TV last night.
Read more at the Telegraph
See also:
Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London (gatestoneinstitute.org)
Advertisements for a Muslim event celebrating U.S. President Barak Obama’s Inauguration show a minaret superimposed over the White House. A Facebook flier for the event features the same minaret over the American flag.
The Muslim American Inaugural Benefit Gala is sponsored, among others, by CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America). CAIR and ISNA were both unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terror-funding trial in America.
The promotional material gala says the following about the purpose of the event: “The Muslim American community has been consistently increasing its civic participation in recent years as demonstrated by increased voter turnout and the election of numerous Muslim federal, state and local office holders.”
Considering that a number of the event’s sponsors are Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups, the purpose fits with the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated strategy of working to gradually transform Western democracies to conform with sharia (Islamic law).
See RadicalIslam.org.’s related article Gradualism: The Islamist Strategy for Victory
Honorary chairs of the event are Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).
by Soeren Kern
Muslim immigrants and their supporters have been using a combination of lawsuits, verbal and physical harassment — and even murder — to silence debate about the rise of Islam.
Opinion surveys show that to voters in France — home to an estimated 6.5 million Muslims, the largest Muslim population in the European Union — Islam and the question of Muslim immigration have emerged in 2012 as a top-ranked public concern. The French, it seems, are increasingly worried about the establishment of a parallel Muslim society there.
But government efforts this year to push back against the Islamization of France were halting and half-hearted and could be described as “one step forward, two steps back.”
A chronological review of some of the main stories involving the rise of Islam in France during 2012 includes:
Muslim immigrants, as of January, began to find it more difficult to obtain French citizenship. New citizenship rules that entered into effect on January 1, 2012 now require all applicants to pass exams on French culture and history and also to prove that their French language skills are equivalent to those of a 15-year-old native speaker. Moreover, candidates seeking French citizenship will be required to pledge allegiance to “French values.”
Muslim applicants make up the majority of the 100,000 people naturalized as French citizens each year, and the new citizenship requirements form part of a larger effort to promote Muslim integration into French society.
In February, the Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar announced plans to invest €50 million ($65 million) in French suburbs, home to more than one million disgruntled Muslim immigrants.
Qatar said its investment was intended to support small businesses in disadvantaged Muslim neighborhoods. But as Qatar, like Saudi Arabia, subscribes to the ultra-conservative Wahhabi sect of Islam, critics say the emirate’s real objective is to peddle its religious ideology among Muslims in France and other parts of Europe.
Shortly before Qatar announced its plans to invest in France, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who has long cultivated an image as a pro-Western reformist and modernizer, vowed to “spare no effort” to spread the fundamentalist teachings of Wahhabi Islam across “the whole world.”
The promotion of Islamic extremist ideologies — particularly Wahhabism, which not only discourages Muslim integration in the West, but actively encourages jihad against non-Muslims — threatens to further radicalize Muslim immigrants in France.
The Qatari investments are being targeted in blighted French suburban slums, known in France as banlieues, where up to one million or more mostly unemployed Muslim immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East try to get by on an impoverished existence.
The banlieues are already being exploited by Islamist preachers from countries such as Morocco and Turkey which are leveraging the social marginalization of Muslim immigrants in France to create “separate Islamic societies” ruled by Islamic Sharia law.
Also in February, a French television documentary revealed that all of the slaughterhouses in the greater Paris metropolitan area are now producing all of their meat in accordance with Islamic Sharia law.
Read more at Gatestone Institute
By Daniel Greenfield
Spain has begun deportation proceedings against Imran Firasat, a Christian refugee from Pakistan, for making a documentary about Mohammed and thereby threatening the national security of Spain. If Firasat is deported back to Pakistan, he will face the death penalty proving that it’s a short step from the Spanish Inquisition to the Pakistani Inquisition.
The United States has a man sitting in prison for making another blasphemous movie, which the government spent weeks blaming for worldwide attacks on American embassies. And he isn’t the first man persecuted or prosecuted for offending Islam. Offending Islam has become a national security issue involving all levels of government.
When Bubba the Love Sponge, a Tampa DJ, proposed to burn a Koran, the commander of the Afghanistan war contacted his girlfriend, who would later be stalked by Petraeus’ girlfriend, to contact the Mayor of Tampa to keep Bubba from burning a Koran. Instead of explaining how the American system works to the Lebanese temptress and her four-star general, the mayor wrote back that the city was working on it.
That month 50 percent more Americans were killed in Afghanistan in the long slow death march of the war, but a Koran was not burned in Tampa. Mission accomplished.
Muslims did not have to kill a great number of Americans to enforce blasphemy law in this country. Counting the various reactions to burnt Korans, rumors of a flushed Koran and assorted things of that nature, the number is still well below a hundred. Even counting every casualty in the war from September 11 onward, it took fewer deaths to make the United States give up on the Bill of Rights than it took to liberate it in the War of Independence.
But it’s not really about the deaths, if it were, then the United States wouldn’t be senselessly squandering the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan to avoid offending the natives. It’s not the death of men that our leaders are worried about, but the death of stability.
Knowing that a hundred men will die today in car accidents does not alarm anyone, but knowing that somewhere a dozen men might die in a bomb explosion, anywhere and at any time, can bring a nations to its knees. That is the difference between predictable and unpredictable death. Predictable death makes it possible for most everyone to go about doing what they normally do. Unpredictable death, however, erodes daily order.
Blasphemy makes terrorism seem predictable. It delivers that false sense of control that is at the root of Stockholm Syndrome, the seductive illusion that the thug can be reasoned with and that we can restore control over our perilous environment by accepting responsibility for the enemy’s violence. If we meet a set of conditions, then we will have peace. And what kind of lunatic wouldn’t want peace? The kind who needs to be deported or locked up in the name of peace.
When an entire country goes Stockholm, then it is no longer interested in winning the war, only in surviving the peace. In a Stockholm country, national security consists of locking up anyone who can be blamed for sabotaging the peacemaking. The less peace there is, the more the peacemakers go on the hunt for “extremists” who are to blame for the lack of it. The more their vision of a better world fails, the more stern measures they must take against their own people. Peace is always one more denunciation of extremism away.
The same countries whose leaders have spent a century and a half blathering incessantly about a truly progressive order under international law have shown no ability to cope with the old-fashioned kind of war. They can quote verbatim the laws of war, but understand poorly that war makes its own laws. War’s simplest law is that you pick a pretext, any popular pretext, make your demands and then go on the attack. If the other side is foolish enough to meet your demands, then it has shown its weakness and must be attacked again and again.
Muslims have restored blasphemy prosecutions to the United States and Europe through violence. Like Khrushchev banging his shoe on the United Nations delegate desk, they did their best to convince the rest of the world that they were violently irrational and liable to do all sorts of things if their demands weren’t met. And their demands were met. Rather than going medieval on their asses, the civilized world instead went medieval on anyone who offended the medieval cult of Islam.
Muslim blasphemy, like the ghetto hood’s respect, is an assertion of supremacy by identity. It isn’t a grievance, it’s a right of violence, and if you give into it, then you accept the inferior status that comes from being weak in a system where might makes right and killing people, or threatening to, is what makes one man better than another.
Islam is submission. If you submit to Islam, then you’re a Muslim. If you submit to a Muslim, then you’re a slave. The western blasphemy trial is not the enforced submission of an Islamic legal system that would be crude and brutal, but at least comparatively respectable, it is the enforced submission to Muslim violence. The judges who preside over our blasphemy cases do not believe in Islam, they believe in the danger of Muslim violence. This is not theocracy, is it slavery.
For the moment blasphemy prosecutions still involve trying offenders on some charge other than the obvious one. Low-hanging fruit like Imran Firasat or Mark Youssef are the easiest to deal with. Any man whose freedom depends on the whim of a judge can already be locked up or deported any time without the need for actual charges of heresy to be brought. When that isn’t possible, there is always the ubiquitous hate crime which increasingly extends to anything that offends anyone regardless of consequences or intent.
These trials are a contradiction, 21st Century legal codes built on sensitivity and tolerance being used to prosecute deviations from a medieval code of insensitivity and intolerance. But that very same contradiction runs through the modern state’s entire approach to Islam. It is impossible to embrace medievalism without becoming medieval. The need to accommodate Islamic medievalism is forcing the medievalization of the modern world’s political and legal systems.
The conflict between the modern world and the Muslim world is being waged by the modern rules of international law and peacemaking on one side and by the medieval rules of brutal violence, insincere offers of peace and bigoted fanaticism on the other. Rather than fighting it on its own terms, the modern world is instead trying to accommodate it on its own terms by accommodating its blasphemy codes.
Trapped in a long-term war, our leaders are looking for ways of making the conflict more manageable. If they can’t win the war, they can at least limit the number of attacks. It’s not the open book kind of appeasement, but the double book kind. The open book is still patriotic, but the second book in the bottom drawer is running payments to the terrorists and finding ways to accommodate them. And anyone who runs afoul of the second book, also runs afoul of national security.
War often compromises freedoms, but it rarely compromises the freedom to hurt the enemy’s feelings. But this is a different sort of war. A war with no enemies and no hope of victory. A war whose only hope is that one day our enemies will become better people and stop trying to kill us. Our enemies are fighting to take away our freedoms and we are fighting to take away our own freedoms in the hopes that if we give up some of them to the enemy, he will settle for them and give up on the rest.
Read more at Canada Free Press
Threat to Free Speech (counterjihadreport.com)
The strange thing about this “multicultural” society is that it can celebrate every imaginable culture except the one that allows all these cultures to co-exist alongside each other — and all the time with enthusiasm from pundits and politicians, busy trying to pretend that this is all the most wonderful result imaginable.
The national census for England and Wales has come out, and, as usual, this once-a-decade event has had all of its most significant points overlooked.
By any measure, what it reveals is a country undergoing seismic change. Over the course of a decade up to four million more people have entered the country to live. In the capital, London, people identifying themselves as “white British” have for the first time become a minority. Perhaps most strikingly, the national Muslim population has doubled.
This last fact is perhaps one of the least considered of the census so far. Doubled? Surely not. This has to be the claim of Mark Steyn or some other demographics-obsessed nut. Well no, it isn’t, and it is now official: between 2001 and 2011 the Muslim population of the UK rose from 1.5 million to 2.7 million. Otherwise put, that is an increase from 3 percent to 4.8 percent of the overall population.
If in 2001 the British Prime Minister had said to the British public that over the next decade he intended to double the number of Muslims in the country, he would most likely never have been returned to office. But of course he did not say that, any more than any of his successors or predecessors did.
For the last decade, every major politician has lied about this issue. While talking tough, about putting a cap on immigrant numbers, pushing people to assimilate and much else besides, they have done nearly nothing. For instance, ten years ago Home Secretary David Blunkett talked as tough as he thought he could, saying that migrants ought to learn English. His successor, Jacqui Smith, said the same thing five years later. As did immigration minister Phil Woolas a couple of years after that. Throughout the last decade the Labour government managed to do exactly what the Conservative and coalition governments before and after them have also managed to do: go as far as they thought they could in rhetoric while going wholly against what they said — and the wishes of the country — in actions.
Now we can see the fruits of their labors. The census reveals that three million people are now living in households where no adult speaks English as their primary language. As Labour’s Sadiq Khan has admitted, local councils have spent their money on translation services rather than language classes, thus actually dissuading people from learning the language. The result is communities with inter-generational language barriers. There are parts of London where a quarter of the people are in the same situation. They have created a society where many people can speak about each other but many cannot actually speak to each other. And all the while politicians and pundits are busy trying to pretend that this is all the most wonderful result imaginable.
The London Evening Standard welcomed the news that white British-born people had become a minority in their own city, and ran a lead opinion piece accusing anybody unhappy about the doubling of the number of Muslims of being “Islamophobes.” Since then, the comments have barely gotten more enlightened. The author Will Self declared on the BBC’s leading talk show Question Time that people unhappy about the direction Britain is going on are “racists.”
On the BBC’s Newsnight I sat alongside two very nice, wealthy, successful immigrants who explained how positive the census results were for Britain, showing a “diverse” and “multicultural” society. I was the only one of the four panelists to point out that this wave of immigration might have any negative effects. And the only one to point out that the strange thing about a “multicultural” society of this kind is that it can celebrate every imaginable culture other than the one which allows all these cultures to co-exist alongside each other. In other words, it is the center which is the only thing not being celebrated, and the center that is being consciously eroded. Worst of all is that this happened in defiance of the repeatedly expressed views – as tested time and again in nationwide polls – of the general public.
Of course much of this simply confirms what the last Labour government appears to have intended. Three years ago, in the same Evening Standard, Andrew Neather, a former adviser to the Blair government, said that the huge upsurge in immigration over the last decade was in part due to a politically motivated attempt by Labour ministers radically to alter the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity.’”
He went on to say that Labour’s relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration,” but that ministers were nervous about discussing this move publicly because they feared that it would alienate their “core working class vote.”
Read more at Gatestone Institute
by 