One Million Child Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.?

Mr-450x299Frontpage,  by Arnold Ahlert, Feb. 9, 2015:

In a gut-wrenching development, it may turn out that last year’s report detailing a decade-and-a-half of sexual exploitation inflicted on at least 1,400 children from Rotherham, England—and the PC-driven effort to cover it up–may represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The city’s Labor MP Sarah Champion believes as many as one million children may have been victimized, describing it as a “national disaster” that requires the establishment of a task force to deal with the “horror.”

Champion picks up the story following the release of a report, titled “The Independent Inquiry Into Child Exploitation in Rotherham, 1997-2013.” “The day after the first report broke the victims started coming to me,” she told the Daily Mirror. “They couldn’t go to the police, they couldn’t go to the (Rotherham Borough) Council. So who do you go to?”

“For the first three weeks I generally thought I was losing my mind. I nearly lost my mind because of the level of depravity and horror,” she continued. “Listening to what these, now women, had gone through and how they were just left discarded, to flounder on their own. It was utterly mind-blowing and then the problem I had was that I was getting new cases coming to me, ones that hadn’t been reported which they wanted me to report. But I didn’t know who I could trust in the police to report it.”

“There was this parallel universe going on and it is mind-blowing,” she added, revealing that an average of 10 victims per week are seeking her help. Furthermore, it seems her concerns about the police were well-founded: a month after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began its investigation, 14 officers were suspended.

Last week a subsequent inspection report written by former Victims’ Commissioner Louise Casey was released, following allegations two councillors and a police officer had engaged in sex with minors. It hammered the Council for being “in denial” and failing to protect children because of “misplaced political correctness.” Minutes after the report’s findings were published, the entire Labor Cabinet of Rotherham Council, along with leader Paul Lakin, resigned. Five senior Whitehall officials, including a children’s services specialist, will assume control of the authority.

Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced new elections aimed at replacing the council’s “wholly dysfunctional” political leadership. “It is because the council is so seriously failing the people of Rotherham, and particularly some of the most vulnerable in that borough, that I am proposing to take this truly exceptional step,” he explained. “My aim will be to return these responsibilities to local democratic control as rapidly as possible.”

Cases contained in Casey’s report are highly disturbing. One concerns an alleged rape with a broken bottle, and girls being ordered to kiss the feet of a perpetrator at gunpoint. A mind-numbing 61 pregnancies were attributed to rapes. “Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the ­Pakistani heritage ­community,” the report stated. “Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.” Inspectors further noted that council members bullied victims, with a witness insisting the council viewed those victims as “little slags.”

The police weren’t any better, refusing to believe accusations made by young girls on numerous occasions. “They were threatened with wasting police time, they were told they had consented to sex and, on occasion, they were arrested at the scene of a crime, rather than the perpetrators,” the report reveals.

Adding insult to injury, whistleblowers who raised concerns lost their jobs. “I stepped forward on behalf of young people – it cost me my job and my career,” one ex-staff member revealed.

A local police officer aptly illuminated the reasons for the coverup. “They were running scared of the race issue… there is no doubt that in Rotherham, this has been a problem with Pakistani men for years and years,” the officer explained. “People were scared of being called racist.”

Following the second report’s release, the National Crime Agency said it was looking into what were described as “potentially criminal matters.”

Last Wednesday an independent inquiry into the Rotherham scandal, along with the Westminster VIP pedophile ring that allegedly consisted of high-ranking members of Britain’s establishment abusing young boys in the 1970s and 1980s, was initiated. UK Home Secretary Theresa May appointed New Zealand High Court judge Lowell Goddard to lead the investigation that may last until 2018. In addition to investigating the two scandals, Goddard’s inquiry will also determine whether other public bodies, including government entities, charitable organizations, the Church and the BBC, also failed to step up and protect children.

The probe was initially set up last July to deal with the Westminster case, but failed to move forward due to a series of scandals that included the disappearance of a 40-page dossier on suspected establishment pedophiles compiled in 1983, raising suspicions of a government cover-up. May reached overseas for her investigator because the inquiry lost its first two chairs due to questions about their possible links with establishment figures.

Goddard promised the latest effort would put survivors “at the forefront and the whole center” of her inquiry. She will travel to the UK to meet Secretary May and discuss the investigation’s scope. The National Crime Agency told the Daily Mail Goddard’s probe would not slow down their own investigation.

A victim of the Rotherham scandal was overjoyed at the latest turn of events. “Finally somebody has listened to us,” said a mother whose daughter had been sexually exploited for five years—beginning at age 11. “Thank god my children will be safe now.”

Perhaps. “There are hundreds of thousands and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now, Champion warned. “Girls in the process of being groomed.” She explained her calculations “If you just think we know at least four big cases each with a couple of thousand each in smallest towns. It’s extraordinary,” she said.

Not really. It’s a very ordinary and predictable reflex born of decades of infatuation with political correctness and multiculturalism. Better to allow children as young as 11 to be systematically abused in Rotherham for more than 16 years, chiefly by men of Pakistani descent, than be labeled a bigot, racist or Islamophobe. Better to fire whistleblowers and better to bully the victims and/or dismiss them as low-lifes who deserve it.

This expanding investigation is now about far more than sexual abuse. The character of the entire UK is on trial. Soon the world will know whether their surrender to multiculturalism and political correctness is completely abject—and irreversible.

Also see:

‘No-go’ zones ‘fact of life’ in Europe

islam_for_franceWND, By Jerome Corsi, Jan. 30, 2015:

NEW YORK – Amid controversy over whether or not Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Europe, Soeren Kern, a senior fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute and also at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group, contends they are “a well-known fact of life” in many parts of the continent.

“Europe’s no-go zones are the byproduct of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from – rather than become integrated into – their European host nations,” Kern wrote Jan. 20 in a Gatestone Institute paper titled “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction.”

Kern asserted the “problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist.”

“Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue,” he said.

As WND reported, Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, ignited the furor when he said in a Fox News interview Jan. 11, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo threatened to sue Fox News, charging its coverage of the issue “insulted” Paris, and the news channel issued an apology. But contrary to how it was widely reported, Fox News didn’t apologize for saying there were “no-go” zones, and supporters of Emerson argued he was guilty only of overstatement, not fabrication.

“I think Steve Emerson’s biggest mistake was to apologize so profusely,” Kern argued. “If Emerson had just said, ‘I made a mistake and what I meant to say was parts of Birmingham, not all of Birmingham,’ that would have been OK. But once you apologize and show the slightest bit of weakness, the attackers attack and try to devour. I think that’s what happened to Steve.”

In an interview with WND, Kern said supporters of multiculturalism typically have derided any news source or politician who dares openly proclaim the existence of “no-go” zones throughout Europe.

He believes the damage done to Emerson by the comment will pass.

“Emerson is a solid researcher, and his work is very well respected,” Kern said. “I think this will blow over; but we’re already entering presidential campaign mode for 2016, and I believe the entire controversy over ‘no-go’ zones in Europe is a completely fake, contrived controversy.

“I think the controversy is really only in the United States, and the French picked up on it,” he said. “If you read the readers comments in the French newspapers on the Fox News controversy, it is overwhelmingly, like nine comments out of 10, that readers agree with what Fox News said originally. Ordinary readers in France know what’s going on, even if the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to cover it up.”

Failed model

Kern believes the “multicultural model in Europe is failing.”

“There has been so much invested in this over the last 30 years, that those people who are promoting this are very afraid this is going to be reversed,” he said.

Kern stressed that uncontrolled immigration of a growing Muslim population is the underlying issue in many European countries.

“In Europe, like in the United States, immigration is literally out of control,” he said. “But the big difference is that in the United States, when you have Latin American immigrants coming across the border, they have a Roman Catholic Western worldview. But in Europe, with mass immigration coming from North Africa and the Middle Eastern countries, it’s a completely different worldview.”

Consequently, he said, a “huge clash of civilizations develops in Europe, and I think that’s why many want to cover this up and discredit anybody who talks about this openly.”

He thinks “the writing is on the wall,” and many more terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo in Paris are inevitable, particularly in Europe.

Kern cited the rise of populist politicians such as Marine Le Pen in France, with polls showing that if there were a presidential race in France today there would be a blowback, as “a lot of French people are upset that immigration, security and integration issues have been swept under the carpet too long.”

Read more at WND

Pat Condell: A special kind of hate

Published on Jan 27, 2015 by Pat Condell

Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.

Jews in Europe report a surge in anti-Semitism
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/wor…

74% of French Jews are considering emigration
http://tabletmag.com/scroll/173382/ne…

Jews flee anti-Semitism upsurge in Europe
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/…

French Muslims see Jews controlling the economy
http://www.jta.org/2014/11/16/news-op…

Islamic anti-Semitism
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Ant…

The global pogrom
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Co…

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Reporter wearing kippah abused by Muslims in Malmö, Sweden
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/20…

Jews attacked in Malmö days after synagogue vandalised
http://www.jta.org/2014/08/04/news-op…

Jewish woman beaten by Muslims in Sweden for wearing Star of David
http://www.inquisitr.com/1422149/anti…

The mayor of Malmö blames Jews for anti-Semitism
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-…

Anti-Semitism in Copenhagen
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruc…

Switzerland: Muslim protesters attempt to storm synagogue
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/New…

Belgian cafe posts a sign banning Jews from entering
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world…

Anti-Israel protesters defend Hitler. Police eject pro-Israel man
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/…

Anti-Semitism in Britain. “Sit up and take notice.”
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/463…

UK Islam apologist admits to Muslim anti-Semitism, “our dirty little secret”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/…

The Luton Islamic Centre is a hotbed of anti-Semitic hatred
http://hurryupharry.org/2015/01/18/lu…

Jewish MP cancels surgeries after threat
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news…

UK Muslim gang goes “Jew bashing”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/…

Another gutless UK politician condemns the current wave of anti-Semitism without once alluding to its source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig…

New York City councilman David Greenfield calls out the Jew haters for what they are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGPz…

Arab TV teaching children to hate Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2…

Daniel Greenfield: We need to talk about Muslim anti-Semitism
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgre…

Contemporary imprints of the anti-Semitic libel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempo…

What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

The Troubling Math of Muslim Migration

pic_giant2_011315_SM_Muslims-Dearborn-G

Preventing a Paris-style attack is, in part, a numbers game. Americans don’t seem to be paying attention.

National Review, By Ian Tuttle, Jan. 13, 2015:

A major Islamist terror attack in France was only a matter of time. For several decades, the country has invited immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa en masse – first to bolster the labor force in the rebuilding years that followed World War II, then out of multicultural impulses that prevailed over prudential considerations. That radical Islam was transplanted to France, grew in strength and extent, and bore this week’s hideous fruit was not difficult to predict. The same is not unlikely in Sweden, Belgium, Germany, and elsewhere.

Demographics may not be the whole of destiny, but they are certainly a good part, and across the Atlantic, the United States seems increasingly to be turning toward Western Europe’s most undesirable demographic trends.

In 1992, 41 percent of new permanent residents in the United States — green-card holders — hailed from the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and North Africa, or sub-Saharan Africa, according to the Pew Research Center. A decade later, the percentage was 53 percent. Over that same period, predictably, the number of Muslim immigrants coming to the United States annually has doubled, from 50,000 to approximately 100,000 each year. In 1992, only 5 percent of Muslim immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa; 20 years later, it was 16 percent. Of the 2.75 million Muslims in the United States in 2011, 1.7 million were legal permanent residents.

There is no official estimate of Muslims in the U.S.; religious affiliation is not tracked by the Census Bureau. However, Pew’s estimate of 2.75 million seems to be on the lower end. The Council on American-Islamic Relations says there are approximately 7 million Muslims in the country.

Whatever the exact level, it can hardly be considered surprising that as the Muslim population in the country has expanded, so has the incidence of radicalism.

The Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, born in the Soviet Union and Kyrgyzstan, respectively, came to the United States as refugees in 2002. They were radicalized inside the country, Tamerlan reportedly at the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass. That mosque has reported links to several other convicted, or suspected, terrorists. Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, born in Eritrea and raised in Yemen, was reportedly an attendee before being sentenced, in 2004, to 23 years in prison for (among other things) his role in a Libyan plot to assassinate then–Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Also reported to worship there was Aafia Siddiqui, “Lady al-Qaeda,” born in Pakistan, later a graduate of MIT and Brandeis University, sentenced to 86 years in prison in 2010 for attempting to kill a U.S. Army captain in Afghanistan. But that was just what they prosecuted: She had plans to conduct a chemical attack in New York City. (The Islamic Society of Boston denies these and several other troubling associations.)

And one can look elsewhere. In 2003, the “Lackawanna Six,” six naturalized citizens from Yemen, were convicted of providing material support to al-Qaeda. Lackawanna, N.Y., (as well as nearby Buffalo) is home to a large Yemeni population. In May, authorities arrested Mufid Elfgeeh, a Yemeni-born man who was allegedly attempting to recruit for the Islamic State and use revenues from his grocery store to fund the organization. He was living in Rochester, N.Y., just an hour east.

But the potential threats of a permissive immigration policy are multigenerational. France has spent decades ushering in its recent fate.

Consider: Said and Chérif Kouachi — the brothers responsible, along with a third accomplice, for the Charlie Hebdo murders — were native Frenchmen whose parents hailed from Algeria. So was Farid Benyettou, the man who drew Chérif Kouachi to radical Islam. So was Mohammed Merah, who shot seven people dead, including three children at Jewish day school, in Toulouse and Montauban in March 2012.

Radicalism seems to ferment as much, if not more so, among first-generation Westerners as among their immigrant parents. Which means that massive Muslim immigration may have few visible repercussions today — but a great many tomorrow.

That reality is becoming manifest in the United States.

Dearborn, Mich., is home to just under 100,000 people, about 40 percent of whom are Muslim. In 2013, a leaked government document revealed that more people from Dearborn were on the federal terrorist watch list than from any other city except New York. In March 2014, Dearborn resident Mohammed Hassan Hamdan was arrested at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on his way to join Hezbollah in Syria.

In October of last year, Mohammed Hamzah Khan, of Bolingbrook, Ill., was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on his way to enlist in the Islamic State. He had left his family a three-page letter inviting them to join him.

And there are the dozens of individuals from the Twin Cities’ Somali diaspora, many of whom worshiped at the same mosque, who have tried — successfully and otherwise — to do the same. (For more information on this phenomenon, go here.)

Perhaps the most infamous native-born terrorist: Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from the West Bank.

Suggesting a correlation between the number of Muslims in the country and the incidence of radicalism is, of course, considered insensitive, if not downright “Islamophobic.”

But the only point here is a mathematical one: Whatever the percentage of Muslims who support or would ever consider supporting jihadism, the raw number obviously increases along with the total number of Muslims. One percent of 10 million is much larger than 1 percent of 1 million. The questions is, at what point does the radical population achieve a kind of critical mass?

This need not be inevitable. America’s immigration policy can be tailored to address this challenge. Unfortunately, the available measures will be only minimally effective without a significant change of political circumstances.

The most obvious prophylactic would be to simply reduce the numbers of immigrants permitted from Muslim-majority countries. Reducing the numbers of immigrants from those countries allowed into the U.S. would reduce opportunities for many good, hard-working folk, yes, but it would almost certainly reduce the number of radical Islamists entering the country as well, making it much more difficult for those so inclined to wreak havoc within our borders, or to entrap the young and impressionable. That would help to reduce the likelihood both of terrorist activity currently and a generation hence. However, while Congress has the authority to legislate such a change, it would meet with fierce opposition from some quarters. A more plausible solution would be to reduce immigration from these countries as part of an across-the-board immigration reduction — although that, too, is improbable anytime soon. Those may of course both be too dramatic: One milder alternative would be to shift immigration priorities toward fellow English-speaking nations and liberal democracies.

Other, finer tools are available. Enhanced scrutiny can be applied to visa applicants from countries recognized as state sponsors of terrorism, or where terrorists are known to operate. The president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ union, has called America’s immigration system the world’s “visa clearinghouse,” with applications processed with an emphasis on speed rather than security and accuracy. The current administration’s policies toward illegal immigrants are likely only to further inundate an already overwhelmed system.

We could also adjust America’s refugee policy, which has played a significant part in the arrival of certain communities — such as Minnesota’s Somalis — and allows for religious distinctions that could be used to distinguish between, say, Syrian Sunnis and Syrian Christians applying for refugee status. However, given political considerations and ham-handed bureaucratic procedures, that change is also unlikely.

But the potential problems associated with massive Muslim immigration, and potential solutions, must be addressed now, when they can still be implemented thoughtfully — not in the wake of an instance of large-scale domestic terrorism.

The attack on Charlie Hebdo was not inevitable, but years of permissive immigration policy made it more and more likely. If we want to reduce the probability of a similar attack inside America’s borders, we should recognize France’s mistake, and reform immigration policies that simply do not add up.

— Ian Tuttle is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.

As of Jan. 15, 2:30 pm, there are 1,672 comments on this article

E Pluribus Unum: Multiculturalism Caused the Paris Attacks – Afterburner w/Bill Whittle

Published on Jan 15, 2015 by PJ Media

It wasn’t the Mohammed cover art that caused the Charlie Hebdo attacks; it was the multicultural treatment of Muslims in France. Another scorcher of an Afterburner from Bill Whittle on PJTV.

Multicultural Suicide

obama_chamberlain_charlie_hebdo_1-11-15-1

By Victor Davis Hanson:

Fueling the Western paralysis in dealing with radical Islam is the late 20th century doctrine of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is one of those buzzwords that does not mean what it should. The ancient and generic Western study of many cultures is not multiculturalism. Rather, the trendy term promotes non-Western cultures to a status equal with or superior to Western culture largely to fulfill contemporary political agendas.

On college campuses, multiculturalism not so much manifests itself in the worthy interest in Chinese literature, Persian history, or hieroglyphics, but rather has become more a therapeutic exercise of exaggerating Western sins while ignoring non-Western pathologies to attract those who see themselves in some way as not part of the dominant culture.

It is a deductive ideology that starts with a premise of Western fault and then makes evidence fit the paradigm. It is ironic that only Western culture is self-critical and since antiquity far more interested than other civilizations in empirically investigating the culture of the other.  It is no accident that Europeans and Americans take on their own racism, sexism, and tribalism in a way that is not true of China, Nigeria or Mexico. Parody, satire, and caricature are not Chinese, African, or Arab words.

A multicultural approach to the conquest of Mexico usually does not investigate the tragedy of the collision between 16th-century imperial Spain and the Aztec Empire. More often it renders the conquest as melodrama between a mostly noble indigenous people slaughtered by a mostly toxic European Christian culture, acting true to its imperialistic and colonialist traditions and values.

In other words, there is little attention given to Aztec imperialism, colonialism, slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism, but rather a great deal of emphasis on Aztec sophisticated time-reckoning, monumental building skills, and social stratification. To explain the miraculous defeat of the huge Mexican empire by a few rag-tag, greedy conquistadors, discussion would not entail the innate savagery of the Aztecs that drove neighboring indigenous tribes to ally themselves with Cortés. Much less would multiculturalism dare ask why the Aztecs did not deploy an expeditionary force to Barcelona, or outfit their soldiers with metal breastplates, harquebuses [1], and steel swords, or at least equip their defenders with artillery, crossbows, and mines.

For the multiculturalist, the sins of the non-West are mostly ignored or attributed to Western influence, while those of the West are peculiar to Western civilization. In terms of the challenge of radical Islam, multiculturalism manifests itself in the abstract with the notion that Islamists are simply the fundamentalist counterparts to any other religion. Islamic extremists are no different from Christian extremists, as the isolated examples of David Koresh or the Rev. Jim Jones are cited ad nauseam as the morally and numerically equivalent bookends to thousands of radical Islamic terrorist acts that plague the world each month. We are not to assess other religions by any absolute standard, given that such judgmentalism would inevitably be prejudiced by endemic Western privilege. There is nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that differs much from what is found in the Koran. And on and on and on.

In the concrete, multiculturalism seeks to use language and politics to mask reality. The slaughter at Ford Hood becomes “workplace violence,” not a case of a radical Islamist, Major Nidal Hasan, screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he butchered the innocent. After the Paris violence, the administration envisions a“Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” [2] apparently in reaction to Buddhists who are filming beheadings, skinheads storming Paris media offices, and lone-wolf anti-abortionists who slaughtered the innocent in Australia, Canada, and France.

The likes of James Clapper and John Brennan assure us of absurdities such as the Muslim Brotherhood being a largely secular organization [3] or jihad as little more than a personal religious journey [4]. Terrorism is reduced to man-caused violence and the effort to combat it is little more than an “overseas contingency operation.” The head of NASA in surreal fashion boasts that one of his primary missions for the hallowed agency is to promote appreciation of Muslim science and accomplishments through outreach to Islam. The president blames an obscure film-maker for causing the deaths of Americans in Benghazi (when in reality, it was a preplanned Al-Qaeda affiliate hit) — and then Obama makes it a two-fer: he can both ignore the politically incorrect task of faulting radical Islam and score politically correct points by chastising a supposedly right-wing bigot for a crime he did not foster.

What is the ultimate political purpose of multiculturalism? It certainly has contemporary utility, in bolstering the spirits of minority groups at home and the aggrieved abroad by stating that their own unhappiness, or failure to achieve what they think they deservedly should have, was due to some deep-seated Western racism, class bias, homophobia, or sexism otherwise not found in their own particular superior cultural pedigree that was unduly smothered by the West.

Read more at PJ Media

John Robson on PEGIDA and similar European movements

Published on Jan 9, 2015 by AlohaSnackbar01

“The whole dynamic is now escaping the control of European political elites because they won’t take security or culture seriously.”

– John Robson

Daniel Greenfield: “Moderate Islam is our new religion”

Daniel Greenfield’s famous, classical chronicle on how Leftist politicians invented “moderate Islam” to make voters accept the import of Muslim voters for the Left. Statistics backing Greenfield’s point here.

Via Dispatch International:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.
Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

slander-prophet-islam-mohammad-barack-hussein-obama-muslimNeither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping. The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

10409654_540202849458314_5604537804951454046_nHe has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until they find him, they have to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Farage: Muslim radicalisation the product of “4 decades of state-sponsored multiculturalism”

Published on Sep 4, 2014 by PlanetEarthAwakens01

UKIP Forum: http://www.reddit.com/r/ukipparty
TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/ukipforum

The Islamization of Britain in 2014

by Soeren Kern
December 30, 2014

“Britain remains the world’s leading recruiting ground for al-Qaeda.” — Con Coughlin, Daily Telegraph.

When she sought help from the police and a lawyer, “the family of the defendants were insulted that she had gone to the law. They wanted her back within the family fold… Therefore, it was decided that she should be forced to comply or be killed.” — Prosecutor of Ahmed A-Khatib, who murdered his wife for becoming “too westernized.”

British school teachers are afraid to teach their students about Christianity out of fear of offending Muslims. — Roger Bolton, BBC Radio 4’s Feedback program.

Rather than taking steps to protect British children, police, social workers, teachers… and the media deliberately played down the severity of the crimes [of Muslim sexual grooming gangs] in order to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism. — From the report “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery.”

A group of British lawyers launched a website, Sharia Watch UK. The group called Sharia law “Britain’s Blind Spot.”

After Adebolajo, who murdered and tried to behead British soldier Lee Rigby with a meat cleaver, was given a “whole-life” prison term, his brother said his sibling was the victim of “Islamophobia.”

“The problem of honor-based violence and forced marriages in England is “worse than people think.” — Claire Phillipson, Wearside Women in Need

The Muslim population of Britain reached 3.4 million in 2014 to become around 5.3% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France and Germany.

Islam and Islam-related issues were omnipresent in Britain during 2014, and can be categorized into four broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists in Syria; 2) the continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) the sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; and 4) Muslim integration into British society.

What follows is a chronological review of some of the main stories involving the rise of Islam in Britain during 2014.

In January, an analysis of census data showed that nearly 10% of the babies and toddlers in England and Wales are Muslim. The percentage of Muslims among children under five is almost twice as high as in the general population. By way of comparison, fewer than one in 200 people over the age of 85 are Muslim, an indication of the extent to which the birth rate is changing the religious demographic in Britain.

Also in January, Muslim fundamentalists threatened to behead a fellow British Muslim after he posted an innocuous image of Mohammed and Jesus on his Twitter account. The death threats against Maajid Nawaz, a Liberal Democrat Party candidate for British Parliament, added to the growing number of cases in which Islamists are using intimidation tactics to restrict the free speech rights of fellow Muslims in Europe.

On January 16, a Muslim woman was arrested by counter-terrorism police at Heathrow Airport as she was preparing to board a flight to Turkey. Nawal Masaad, 26, is accused of trying to smuggle £16,500 ($27,000; €20,000) in her underwear to jihadists in Syria. She and her alleged co-conspirator, Amal El-Wahabi, 27—a Moroccan who does not work and claims British social welfare benefits for herself and two young sons—were the first British women to be charged with terrorism offenses linked to the conflict in Syria.

On January 23, the head of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism unit, Commander Richard Walton, revealed that 14 British minors were arrested on charges linked to the Syrian conflict in January alone, compared to 24 for the whole of 2013. He said it was “almost inevitable” that some fighters would try to mount attacks in Britain upon their return.

On January 16, British Islamist Abu Waleed outlined his vision of an Islamic state in Britain, and called for Christians to be humiliated so that they would convert to Islam. In a video, he said:

“If the Muslim sees a kaffir [non-Muslim] with nice clothes, the kaffir has to take his clothes off and give them to the Muslim. The kaffir, when he walks down the street, he has to wear a red belt around his neck, and he has to have his forehead shaved, and he has to wear two shoes that are different from one another. He [the non-believer] is not allowed to walk on the pavement, he has to walk in the middle of the road, and he has to ride a mule. That is, my dear brothers, the Islamic state.”

In Bristol, the city council approved a controversial plan to convert a former comedy club into a mosque. In Cambridgeshire, a Muslim group submitted plans to convert a warehouse into a new mosque. In Cambridge, locals opposed a plan to build a £17.5 million ($28.5 million; €21 million) mega-mosque, claiming it could be “a front for terrorism.” In Blackburn, home to nearly 100 mosques, city councilors were urged to reject a plan to open a mosque in a residential neighborhood.

In Southend, local residents celebrated after a four-year battle resulted in the closing of an illegal mosque. In Newton Mearns, south of Glasgow, plans were abandoned to build a mosque within the grounds of a school in one of the most affluent suburbs of Scotland, due to local criticism of the move.

In Catherine-de-Barnes, a tiny village in western central England, local residents objected to plans for a large, Muslim-only cemetery, which will include space for 4,000 followers of Islam to be buried, and 75 parking spaces for visitors. The village has a population of just 613, which means the cemetery could eventually hold six-and-a-half times as many people as Catherine-de-Barnes itself.

In February, official statistics showed that net immigration to the United Kingdom surged to 212,000 in the year ending September 2013, a significant increase from 154,000 in the previous year. The new immigration data cast doubt on a pledge by Prime Minister David Cameron to get net migration—the difference between the number of people entering Britain and those leaving—down to the “tens of thousands” before the general election in May 2015.

Separately, data released by the National Crime Agency showed a 155% rise in British children groomed by sex gangs during 2013.

Also in January, a Muslim extremist who hacked a soldier to death on a London street in May 2013, launched a taxpayer-funded appeal against his murder conviction. Michael Adebolajo, 29, who tried to behead the British soldier Lee Rigby with a meat cleaver, maintained that he should not have been convicted because he is a “soldier of Allah” and therefore Rigby’s killing was an act of war rather than premeditated murder.

Adebolajo and his co-defendant, Michael Adebowale, 22, were found guilty by a jury in December 2013, and were sentenced on February 26. Adebolajo was given a “whole-life” prison term and Adebowale was given a minimum term of 45 years. Adebolajo’s brother saidhis sibling was the victim of “Islamophobia.”

On February 16, The Sunday Times reported that about 250 British jihadists who went to train and fight in Syria had returned to the UK and were being monitored by the security services. Senior officials said the high number of “returnees”—five times the figure that had been previously reported—underlined the growing danger posed by “extremist tourists” going to the war-torn region. MI5 and police said they feared that “returnees” could be preparing a Mumbai-style gun attack on civilians, possibly in a crowded public place in London.

On February 14, three Muslim vigilantes who terrorized innocent members of the public as the self-styled “Muslim Patrol” were banned from promoting Sharia Law in Britain for a period of five years.

In March, British authorities launched an investigation into the source of a document that purportedly outlined a plot by Muslim fundamentalists to Islamize public schools in England and Wales. The four-page document described a strategy—dubbed Operation Trojan Horse—to oust non-Muslim head teachers and staff at state schools in Muslim neighborhoods and replace them with individuals who would run the schools according to strict Islamic principles.

Also in March, a report entitled, “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,”showed how officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming—the process by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to prepare them for abuse—by Muslim gangs since at least 1988. Rather than taking steps to protect British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes perpetrated by the grooming gangs in order to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.

Meanwhile, official figures revealed that record levels of Muslims are serving jail sentences and that the numbers are still growing. Across England and Wales the proportion has risen from 8% one decade ago to 14% now. In London, the figure is 27%, which is more than double the 12% of the capital’s population who are Muslim.

On March 27, ITV News reported that the problem of honor-based violence and forced marriages in England is “worse than people think,” but that many people are afraid of speaking out because they do not want to be branded as being “racist.” Claire Phillipson from Wearside Women in Need said:

“I have no doubt that all over the North East [England] first, second, third generation English young women are being forced into marriage.

“Schools and communities are keeping silent about it, because they are concerned that they would be called racist, Islamophobic. They don’t quite know where the line between culture, religion and human rights should be drawn.”

An image from the video “Right to choose: Spotting the signs of forced marriage – Nayana”, produced by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

On March 13, the Law Society, the main professional association representing and governing the legal profession in England and Wales, issued ground-breaking guidance to help lawyers draft Sharia-compliant wills and estate planning documents. The move effectively enshrined Islamic Sharia law in the British legal system for the first time.

In April, the British government launched a public consultation on whether or not to introduce student loans that are compliant with Islamic Sharia law, which forbids loans that involve the payment of interest.

Critics said that the dispute over interest-bearing student loans follows stepped-up demands for Sharia-compliant banking and insurance as well as credit cards, mortgages and pension funds, which—taken together—are contributing to the establishment of parallel Islamic financial and legal systems in Britain.

Separately, Lloyds Bank was accused of reverse religious discrimination after dropping overdraft fees for Muslims but not for others. The bank said that non-Muslims would have to pay up to £80 (€97, $135) a month for an overdraft, but that for Muslims “there won’t be any charges.”

Meanwhile, the fast food giant Subway removed ham and bacon from almost 200 outlets in Britain and switched to halal (Arabic for “permitted” or “lawful”) meat alternatives, apparently in an attempt to please its Muslim customers.

On April 9, Home Secretary Theresa May published her annual report on the government’s strategy for countering terrorism. The report concluded that battle-hardened British jihadists returning from the war in Syria now pose the most serious threat to British security.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Sweden to Opt for Suicide by Immigration?

pic_giant3_123014_SM_Stockholm_Parliament-DTLeft and Right came together to marginalize popular concerns about immigration.

National Review, By Daniel Pipes, Dec. 30, 2014:

Woe to anyone in Sweden who dissents from the orthodox view that welcoming large numbers of indigent peoples from such countries as Iraq, Syria, and Somalia is anything but a fine and noble idea. Even to argue that permitting about 1 percent of the existing population to emigrate annually from an alien civilization renders one politically, socially, and even legally beyond the pale. (I know a journalist threatened with arrest for mild dissent on this issue.) Stating that there exists a Swedish culture worth preserving meets with puzzlement.

And yet, the realities of immigration are apparent for all to see: welfare dependency, violent bigotry against Christians and Jews, and a wide range of social pathologies from unemployment to politically motivated rape. Accordingly, ever-increasing numbers of Swedes find themselves — despite known hazards — opting out of the consensus and worrying about their country’s cultural suicide.

The taboo on such attitudes means that political parties, with only one exception, staunchly support continued immigration. Only the Sweden Democrats (SD) offer an alternative: real efforts to integrate existing immigrants and a 90 percent decrease in future immigration. Despite an unsavory neo-fascist past (not something unique to it, by the way), SD has become increasingly respectable and has been rewarded with electoral success, doubling its parliamentary vote from 3 percent in 2006, to 6 percent in 2010, to 13 percent in 2014. All the Swedes with whom I spoke on a recent visit expect the SD vote to grow further, something recent polls confirm.

If a party or bloc of parties held a large majority in Sweden’s unicameral parliament, SD would be virtually irrelevant. But the Riksdag’s two blocs are almost equally balanced. Three left-wing parties control 159 of 349 seats, while the “right wing” (quotation marks to denote that, from an American perspective, it’s hardly conservative) Alliance for Sweden, consisting of four parties, has 141 seats. This means that SD, with 49 seats, holds the balance of power.

But SD is deemed anathema, so no party bargains with it to pass legislation, not even indirectly through the media. Both Left and “Right” seek to isolate and discredit it. Nevertheless, SD has played kingmaker on certain crucial legislation, particularly the annual budget. In keeping with its policy to drive from power every government that refuses to reduce immigration, it brought down an Alliance for Sweden government in early 2014. Recent weeks saw a repeat of this scenario, when SD joined the Alliance in opposing the leftist budget, forcing the government to call for elections in March 2015.

But then something remarkable occurred: The two major blocs compromised not only on the current budget, but also on future budgets and power-sharing all the way to 2022. The left and “right” alliances worked out trade-offs so that elections need not take place in March, allowing the Left to rule until 2018, with the “Right” possibly taking over from 2018 until 2022. Not only does this political cartel deprive SD of its pivotal role but, short of winning a majority of parliamentary seats in 2018, it has no meaningful legislative role for the next eight years, during which time the immigration issue is off the table.

This is nothing short of astonishing: To stifle debate over the country’s most contentious issue, 86 percent of the parliament joined forces to marginalize the 14 percent that disagrees. The two major blocs diluted their already tepid differences to exclude the insurgent, populist party. Mattias Karlsson, the acting SD leader, accurately notes that with this deal, his party has become the only real opposition.

In the long term, however, things look good for SD, which will likely gain from this undemocratic sleight of hand. Swedes, long accustomed to democracy, do not appreciate a backroom arrangement that almost surely nullifies their votes in 2018. They don’t like its bullying quality. Nor do they take well to removing a highly controversial issue from consideration. And when the time comes to “throw the bums out,” as always it does, the Sweden Democrats will offer the only alternative to the tired, fractious coalition that will have been in power for eight long years — during which time immigration problems will alarm yet more voters.

In other words, this blatant act of suppression is spurring the very debate it is intended to quash. Before too long, the supreme issue of national suicide might actually be discussed.

Also see:

Sydney Hostage-Taker “Muslims Will Take Over Australia”

397141-sheik-man-haron-monis-450x253Frontpage, By Daniel Greenfield On December 15, 2014

On his Fatwa page, Sheikh Haron aka Man Haron Monis, the Sydney hostage-taker who had spent nearly two decades committing a variety of crimes including sexual assault, murder and supporting terrorism without being deported, explained his vision for Australia.

In the Holy Quran (Chapter 24, Verse 55) has promised Muslims that they would be the rulers in the Earth. According this verse of the Holy Quran, we, Muslims, will capture the Earth including Australia.

Insha Allah Ta aalaa, we will be the majority of Australia one day.

Australian Muslims should practice and be prepared for such a day which might be soon Insha Allah (SWT).

Australian Muslims should try to carry and raise the Australian flag much more but at the same time they must always remind people about the promise of Allah (SWT) that Muslims will take over Australia. (Sadaqa Allah al Adhim).

And Sheikh Haron was also opposed to the very multiculturalism that allowed him to invade Australia and do his dirty work there. Because he looked forward to Muslims displacing everyone else.

Multiculturalism advocates a nation that extends equitable status to distinct different religious and cultural groups. Multiculturalism doesn’t predominate a specific culture and religion.

Islam predominates one specific religion and culture which is Islamic culture. The philosophy of Multiculturalism as part of the pragmatism started at the end of the 19th century in UK and USA. The idea of plural society is against “Ummah Wahidah” in Islam.

Allah (SWT) advocates only one religion and culture: the Islamic culture that was brought us by prophets from Adam to Muhammad (peace be upon them).

Muslims must promote “Muslimculturalism” instead of “Multiculturalism”.

Insha Allah one day in the near future, Muslims in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA etc. will face Monoculturalism and that will be the Islamic culture.

We believe that replacing “Muslimculturalism” instead of “Multiculturalism” will bring a better future for our beloved country.

Australian culture instead of Muslimculturalism seems likely to bring in a future without Muslim terrorism.

Also by Greenfield:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights radical Islam’s real war on women

In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights. (Graeme Jennings/Examiner)

In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights. (Graeme Jennings/Examiner)

By Ashe Schow:In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights.

The decision was triggered by Hirsi Ali’s outspoken criticisms of Islam. The Somali-born activist has sounded alarms about the prevalence of extremism in Muslim countries and the misogyny that pervades even mainstream Islam.

During the Brandeis controversy, a CAIR spokesman called her “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam-haters in America.”

But Hirsi Ali’s warnings about Islamic extremism were quickly supported by world events, as just a week after Brandeis rescinded her honorary degree, the Islamist terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls in the first of many such abductions throughout the summer. A few months after the kidnappings began, news spread that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, another terrorist group, was selling Yazidi women into sexual slavery.

Related: Seven horrific examples of the real “war on women”

In recent years, as part of its efforts to leverage its historical electoral advantage with female voters, Democrats in the United States have promoted the idea that Republicans have been waging a “war on women.” At various times, the term has been associated with politicians who oppose late-term abortions; conservatives who defend the right of religious business owners to decline to provide contraception coverage to employees; and those who question the assumptions behind the statistic that women on average earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. During the 2014 midterm election season, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz even claimed Tea Party Republicans were “grabbing [women] by the hair and pulling us back.”

Many on the Right have responded to this campaign either by mocking the idea that a war on women exists or by challenging many of the claims liberals make to perpetuate the narrative — pointing out, for example, that nearly all of the gender wage gap can be explained by the career choices women make. But the truth is that there is a war on women. It just isn’t occurring where American liberals claim it is, but rather in countries where women are forbidden to leave their homes without a male escort; seen as nothing more than chattel to be sold or abused; killed if they disobey their family’s wishes; mutilated to prevent them from having sex; and attacked with acid when they try to escape.

If American liberals were as concerned about women’s rights as they claim to be, they would have to shift their focus to other countries, but that would mean giving up a cherished narrative about conservatives here at home and acknowledging the threat radical Islam poses to women worldwide.

From Earlier: Ayaan Hirsi Ali slams modern American feminism’s “trivial BS”

The real horrors facing women in the world aren’t discussed in America, where those who try to point out what is going on in other countries or criticize the trivial nature of feminist obsessions are sidelined from the public debate.

But recent events have cast a glaring light on the brutal treatment of women by those claiming to act in the name of Islam, posing a challenge to the American Left by creating a conflict between the liberal desire for women’s equality and a multicultural reluctance to criticize other cultures. This philosophical tension gained national attention in October, when HBO’s liberal host Bill Maher noted the connection between Islamic ideology and violence, igniting a bitter argument with celebrity guest Ben Affleck.

Bundled up and fearful of shaking hands because of a cough, Hirsi Ali sat down with theWashington Examiner in November before being presented an award by the Independent Women’s Forum at its Women of Valor Dinner in Washington. She noted that where extremist ideology spreads, death and mayhem flourish.

“That consequence you see today in parts of Iraq and Syria,” Hirsi Ali said. “You see it in what Boko Haram is doing. You’ve seen it with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Everywhere where that idea is implemented it has a sudden pattern.”

Critics have attacked Hirsi Ali as Islamophobic and have argued that the portrait she paints is not representative of Islam at large. But her disagreements with Islam are rooted in her own East African upbringing.

Hirsi Ali was subjected to female genital mutilation at the age of 5 in her home country, Somalia, while her father, who opposed the traditional practice, was in prison. Her father escaped and moved the family to Saudi Arabia, then to Ethiopia and finally to Kenya when Hirsi Ali was 11 years old.

MORE: The real “war on women”: A victim speaks

She grew up as a Muslim woman, reading and accepting the Quran and its teachings. But when her family prepared to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to the Netherlands. She eventually became a translator, speaking on behalf of Somali women who, like her, were seeking asylum.

Hirsi Ali discovered many women continued to suffer under Islam even in the secular, liberal Netherlands. She decided to enter politics to bring attention to the plight of Muslim women and girls, and in 2003 she was elected to the Dutch parliament.

Her charisma and criticism of Islam as a member of parliament gained the attention of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. She wrote and narrated his film “Submission” about oppressed women in Holland, a film that outraged Dutch Muslims. On Nov. 2, 2004, an Islamist shot and stabbed van Gogh to death in Amsterdam as he rode his bicycle to work. A letter was pinned to van Gogh’s dead body with a knife, a letter that included a death threat against Hirsi Ali.

She moved to the United States in 2006 following her resignation from parliament amid accusations that she lied on her asylum application. But even in America, a security detail accompanies her wherever she goes.

Hirsi Ali has a reputation as a fearless critic of Islam, but she spoke quietly, almost timidly, even though her security detail was on alert just outside the secluded room where our interview took place.

Liberals, she said, protect Islamic extremists partly because the Left has no idea what really goes on in Muslim countries.

“They feel all religions are the same, and they’re not,” she observed. “I think if I adopt the position in good faith to multiculturalists and leftists, I would say [they take the position they do] because they see them [Muslims] as victims. They see them as victims of the white man and so they think: ‘Let’s protect them from the white man. Let’s protect them from capitalism.’… That is misguided at best and malicious at worst.”

One need only remember the tragic shooting at Fort Hood in 2009 to see such indifference to extremism in action. U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded many more after becoming radicalized and corresponding with Yemeni-American terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Despite evidence that Hasan’s rampage was religiously motivated — he shouted “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is great”) before opening fire — the Obama administration classified the attack as “workplace violence.”

The Left’s kid-glove treatment of even radical Islam exposes the logical flaw at the heart of multiculturalism. How does one tolerate the murderous intolerance of another culture? Is someone really a principled supporter of diversity, of women’s rights, of gay rights, if he refuses to resist or even acknowledge the mortal threat that is posed to those causes by a different culture?

Read more at Washington Examiner

Also see:

Imagine There’s No Islam — It’s Easy If You Try!

by Baron Bodissey:

The following excerpts are from a speech given on the floor of parliament by Machiel de Graaf, a member of parliament for Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands.

What an exhilarating, energizing, astounding speech this is! Geert Wilders was prosecuted twice, and is about to be prosecuted again, for saying things that were far more circumspect and far less inflammatory to Muslim sensibilities than these frank statements of fact and opinion by Mr. de Graaf. Presumably the speaker is enjoying the protection of his parliamentary immunity while speaking.

I hope this one goes viral on the Internet. Many thanks to SimonXML for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript at Gates of Vienna