Judge’s Rush Is Endangering 175 Migrant Children, Says Health Agency

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, July 14, 2018:

A California judge is endangering 2,551 migrant children by rushing their reunification with migrants who claim to be their parents, says the Department of Health and Human Services.

The discovery of fraud and deception among the adults who brought the first batch young 103 children shows that the “truncated vetting for [2,551 children aged 5 to 17] would result in HHS placing up to approximately 175 children with adults who are not their parents in the next 13 days,” said a July 13 court statement signed by Chris Meekins, a senior official in the DHHS agency.

The statement flips the claim by progressives that President Donald Trump is endangering children by separating them from their migrant parents. Trump’s deputies are now pointing out that a rush reunification carries risks for the children which progressives are claiming to champion.

Judge Dana Sabraw has set a July 26 deadline for reunifying all of 2,551 children and youths with the migrant adults who brought them into the United States. To ensure the unification, the judge is requiring that the adults be released from detention via the catch-and-release loopholes which President Donald Trump is trying to close, even their claims for asylum have not been decided.

The fast-track reunification “process will likely result in the placing of children with adults who falsely claimed to be their parents or into potentially abusive environments,” Meekins said. ‘My opinion is that the court’s truncating of the vetting process for class membership — including the elimination of the critical requirements for sponsor care plans — materially increases the risk of harm to children.”

Because of the judge’s rush, HHS officials have stopped DNA testing of migrants and children to ensure their claims of parental relationship are correct. DNA testing would take months, said Meekins.

Officials are also unable to gather data about the people whom the children will be living with, likely because many of the households include other illegal immigrants who want to hide their identity from the federal government.

For example, one child from El Salvador was reunited with her mother in Houston without a full background check on the people in her expected household. A June Washington Postreport reported that the mother’s mother’s sister had already migrated illegally from El Salvador to Houston.

The agency pushback follows weeks of emotional complaints by progressive activists and media that Trump’s deputies are endangering and harming the children brought into the United States by Central American migrants.

However, the resulting spotlight exposed large-scale fraud among the migrants who are described as victims by progressives.

The White House detailed criminal, identity, and disease problems with 21 of the migrants who brought the 102 under-5 children:

11 of the illegal aliens have criminal records: 

  1. Warrant for murder in Guatemala
  2. Child cruelty and narcotics convictions
  3. Suspected transnational criminal organization involvement and human trafficking
  4. Outstanding criminal warrant in El Salvador
  5. 2 DUI convictions
  6. Significant criminal history including assault conviction
  7. Outstanding warrant in Florida for DUI
  8. DUIs, assault, stolen vehicle
  9. Robbery conviction
  10. Wanted by El Salvador
  11. Criminal charges including assault

7 of the illegal aliens not the parents of the toddler:

  1. Adult said he is uncle, not father
  2. Negative DNA match, adult indicated he is not the child’s father
  3. Adult said she is grandmother, not mother
  4. During DNA testing, adult disclosed she is not the child’s mother
  5. Negative DNA match, still under investigation
  6. Adult disclosed that she is grandmother, not the parent
  7. Adult presented false birth certificate, still under investigation

2 of the illegal aliens present a danger to the toddler:

  1. Before court order, adult was required to submit information and fingerprints of other adults in household where she will live with the child; background check on adult male in household shows an active warrant for aggravated criminal sexual assault of a 10-year-old female.
  2. Child made allegations of abuse against adult

1 of the illegal aliens has a communicable disease:

21. Parent is being treated for communicable disease in ICE custody

Moreover, Meekins reported that eight of the 102 children were reunified with parents even though the parents have not provided the needed details — such as fingerprints –regarding the cohabitants in the houses where the children will be living.

Also, agency officials did not conduct DNA tests on 12 of the 47 adults who have been given custody of the remaining children among the group of 102.

“It is not, nor should it be, our objective to reunify all 2,551 minors with the adult whom they arrived here with, because some of those adults are not their parents or pose a clear danger to the children,” said a July 13 statement from DHHS. It continued:

As we saw with the minors covered by the court case who are under age 5, and as the court has acknowledged, there are many circumstances that preclude a minor from being reunited with a parent, including when a purported parent ends up not being the parent, a parent poses a threat to the child’s well-being, or a parent is in custody elsewhere due to criminal activity.

On July 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released new “credible fear” guidelines which could sharply reduce the number of migrants allowed into the United States to plead for asylum. The guidelines may prevent most migrants from using the various catch-and-release rules set by progressive judges, President Barack Obama’s deputies, political activists, and their allies.

Also  see:

Religious Freedom? Or Oppression in the Name of Tolerance?

Citizen Warrior, July 14, 2018:

A reporter working for a newspaper in Sweden posed as a Muslim mother of a preschool-aged girl and called forty schools asking if the teachers would help make sure her daughter wore her headscarf at school. Two thirds of them said yes, and some even offered to take videos of the girl for proof of compliance.

A writer for a Swedish newspaper was rightfully outraged by this and made a very good argument against such compliance. The national curriculum for Sweden says that all preschools must be guided by the principles of “individual freedom, integrity, and gender equality.” The author wondered if making a girl wear a headscarf violates those principles since it is not merely a garment, but a “symbol of women’s submission to men.”

The writer insisted that Sweden needs to have a national conversation about “where the limits of religious freedom lie.”

And this, I thought, was the Swedish writer’s pithiest statement: We can’t allow “oppression in the name of tolerance.”

Absolutely. This is now a top issue in every free country, being forced to the top by the immigration of so many Muslims. Dealing with this issue, or even bringing it up, has been labeled “xenophobia.” But it isn’t foreigners in general, but followers of Islamic doctrine that are forcing us to resolve an important ethical conflict. The sooner we resolve it, the better.

You can read the article in The Week Magazine here: Stop Forcing Young Girls to Wear Veils.

The Relentless Radicalization of Sweden

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, 

  • Swedish police report that Muslim children have told their classmates they will cut their throats, while showing them beheadings on their mobile phones, according to the new study of Salafism in Sweden by the Swedish Defence University.
  • “Many women live worse [lives] here than they would have in their former countries” — Swedish care worker.
  • The inability — willful blindness is probably a more apt description — to see that jihadist terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum, but is nurtured in particular environments, is hardly an exclusively Swedish situation. The insistence of so many European and other Western authorities on describing terrorist attacks as instances of “mental illness” illustrate it perfectly.

A new study[1] of Salafism in Sweden, conducted by the Swedish Defence University, paints a bleak picture of the ongoing radicalization of Muslims in Sweden.

The Salaf are the “pious ancestors” during the first three generations of the followers of Mohammed; its ideology has come to be associated over the last few decades with al-Qaeda and ISIS, as well as with local al-Qaeda affiliates. According to the study, Salafists, who believe in Islam as Mohammed’s early followers practiced it, tend to reject Western society in favor of a “pure” Islam: “Not all Salafists are jihadists, but all jihadists are Salafists”. [2]

Although the study does not give an estimate of how many Salafists are in Sweden, it does describe how Salafist milieus there have evolved and grown stronger, especially during the past decade, and lists several examples of the influence they wield in different Swedish cities and localities.

The Swedish Defence University has published a new study that paints a bleak picture of the ongoing radicalization of Muslims in Sweden. (I99pema/Wikimedia Commons)

“Salafists”, the authors of the study conclude, “…advocate gender segregation, demand that women veil themselves to limit ‘sexual temptation’, restrict women’s role in the public sphere and strongly oppose listening to music and some sports activities”[3].

According to the study, many Salafists also tell Muslims not to have Swedish friends, and refer to them as “kufr“, the Arabic term for a non-Muslim or “disbeliever”. One Salafist preacher, Anas Khalifa, said:

“Does that mean that if you meet a Christian or Jew you should beat him or threaten him? No. There is no war between you and Christians and Jews in your school, for example. You hate him for Allah’s sake. You hate that he does not believe in Allah. But you want from your heart that he will love Allah. So you have to work with them, talk with them, because you want Allah to guide them”. [4]

The Salafists, apparently, have divided Sweden geographically between them. According to the study:

“It is interesting that the Salafist preachers, on which the study focuses, appear to be more in cooperation with each other, rather than rivals. Instead, these preachers seem to divide their da’wa (mission) into different geographical areas…”[5].

The study’s findings from different cities where Salafists are active include:

In Borås, some children will not drink the water at the school or paint with watercolors there, because they say the water is “Christian”. The police report that Muslim children have told their classmates they will cut their throats, while showing them beheadings on their mobile phones. There are examples of “adolescents arriving at mosques at the end of a school day to ‘wash’ themselves after having interacted with [non-Muslim] society”. Care workers [health care, child care, etc.] in the city have testified to how men exercise control over women, checking on them even in waiting rooms[6]. One care worker said:

“I realized that there is a network that controls the women so they won’t be left alone with the care workers. They are not given a chance to tell anyone about their situation. Many women live worse [lives] here than they would have in their former countries”.

This kind of control of women appears to be taking place in practically all the Swedish cities mentioned in the study.

In Västerås, religious influence is mixed with crime. “It could be a bunch of guys coming into the grocery store. If the woman at the cashier is not veiled, they take what they want without paying, they call the cashier ‘Swedish whore’ and spit on her,” said a police officer in the study. Other examples include Syrians and Kurds who run stores and restaurants in the area and are questioned by young Muslims about their religion. If the answer is not Islam, they are harassed. In other cases, boys as young as 10-12 years have approached older women in the area, asking them whether they are Muslim, telling them “this is our area”.[7]

In Gothenburg, according to the study[8], Salafists told Muslims not to vote in the most recent elections because it is “haram” (forbidden). “They said that on the day of judgment you will be responsible for the actions of all stupid politicians if you vote. They stood at polling stations… At one polling station they waved an IS [Islamic State] flag”, a local official told the authors of the study. According to one imam in the city, Gothenburg has been the capital of Wahhabism (a Saudi version of Salafism) in Europe since the 1990s.[9]

Out of the 300 Swedish Muslims who joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq, almost one third came from Gothenburg.[10] (In relation to their total population, more people have traveled from Sweden to join jihadist groups in Syria and Iraq than from most European countries — only Belgium and Austria have a higher proportion[11]). Somali-Canadian preacher Said Regeah, speaking at the Salafist Bellevue Mosque in Gothenburg, has “raised the importance of people being born ‘pure’ and that only Muslims are pure. All are born as Muslims, but it is the parents who shape them to become ‘Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians'”.[12]

The study also reports that non-Muslim business owners have experienced having their facilities vandalized with Islamic State graffiti and that Christian priests have received threats of decapitation[13]. One man, Samir, said, “If you do not follow Islam, people ostracize you. There are parents here who put veils on their three-year-olds. It is unreal. We are not in Iraq”.[14]

Another man, Anwar, was denied service in a Muslim restaurant because he is not religious. He points out that society is letting secular Muslims down: “I don’t need a Bible or a Koran in my life. The only book I need is… the [Swedish] law. But if society isn’t even on your side, what can you do?”[15]

In the Stockholm area, the study estimates that there are currently up to 150 Salafist jihadists[16]. Salafists are especially concentrated in the Järva area, a “no go zone”. Sometimes the jihadist and the criminal elements overlap, and these Muslims terrorize other people who live in the area. One woman said that Salafists and Islamists have come to dominate businesses, basement mosques, and cultural associations during the past ten years, and that “Swedes have no idea how much influence political Islam has in the suburb”. She described how even children are gender segregated and that religious leaders tell women not to tell the authorities if their husband abuses them. “Swedish laws are not applied in the suburbs”.[17]

The study concludes with a critique of Swedish authorities for their apparent inability to link individual radical Muslims to the “environments that form their ideas and in certain cases have facilitated the will to join more radical and violent groups”. The study mentions the following as an example:

“When the then-National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism said that the question of why so many people chose to travel to IS from Sweden was ‘a million dollar question’, it is an illustration of the overall inability of Swedish authorities (with the exception of police and security police) to see that this problem has not emerged from a vacuum”.[18]

This inability — or possibly willful blindness — to see that jihadist terrorism does not emerge from a vacuum, but is nurtured in particular environments is hardly an exclusively Swedish situation. The insistence of so many European and other Western authorities to describe terrorist attacks as instances of “mental illness” illustrate it perfectly.

The authors of the study also mention that schools and other local authorities do not know how to deal with the challenges created by the Salafists. The study mentions, for example, that a Muslim schoolgirl wanted to take off her headscarf to play hairdresser with the other children, but the Swedish personnel did not allow it out of respect for her parents’ wishes. In an example from a Swedish preschool, a little girl did not want to wear her headscarf but the Swedish personnel forced it on her, “even though it felt wrong”, because it was the parents’ wish. Swedish school personnel have also described that they do not know how to act when children want to eat and drink during Ramadan, but the parents have instructed that they must fast.[19]

The study is an important first step in Sweden finally acknowledging that there is a problem, but unless the relevant Swedish authorities — including the Swedish government and the political leaders, who refuse to acknowledge reality in Sweden — read and internalize it, the study will have been done in vain.

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

***

The Nationalist Sweden Democrats Become Biggest Party in The Nation!!!

***

Islamic Movement in U.S. Preparing for Battle

Re-upping this important post from 2016. This  should make crystal clear why we  need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood in it’s entirety a foreign terrorist organization. The use of terrorist tactics by the Muslim Brotherhood is guided by the principle of gradualism laid out by Sayyid Qutb in his book, Milestones. When they feel that the time is right they have always resorted  to violence to gain power.

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 13, 2016:

For UTT followers who are accustomed to brief articles, this is a longer article because it needs to be.  This is an important topic and needs a little more attention.  Please read this carefully because the implications are significant.  JG

As UTT has continually reported, there exists in the United States a significant jihadi movement led primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood whose organizations include the most prominent and influential Islamic groups in America.

The Islamic Movement in the U.S. continues their daily work of preparing for the coming battle at all levels of the society.  From a military standpoint, the leaders of the American Muslim community are coalescing their forces and preparing strategically, operationally, and logistically for war.

Strategic Overlay

Going back to the early 1980’s, the jihadis set up an elaborate network of jihadi centers known in the U.S. as the Al Kifah Refugee Centers to recruit jihadis for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Some of these over three dozen offices were operated by only a couple jihadis with a phone or fax machine, and some had a more sizable presence in the community.  Nevertheless, they created nodes across the United States for jihadis in many American cities, and became centers for possible Al Qaeda recruitment in the future.

For the last few decades the Pakistani terrorist organization known as Jamaat al Fuqra has been establishing jihadi training camps in the United States primarily among black Muslims, many of whom were recruited in prison.  Known in the U.S. as “Muslims of America” or “MOA,” approximately two dozen of the three dozen known camps appear to be operational today.

In the early 1990’s the Chief Investigator for the state of Colorado, with support from the Governor and Attorney General, launched a multi-jurisdictional raid of an MOA compound near Buena Vista (CO) and discovered weapons, explosives, lists of people to be assassinated, evidence that military/national guard bases had been under surveillance, and the like.

In one of the gems discovered in the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia home of a senior Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader, a recording of a senior Muslim Brotherhood leader speaking to a group of Muslim Brothers in Missouri revealed the MB has numerous training camps inside America and conducted regular firearms training.

To be clear, they are not planning on conducting violent actions in the immediate future, but are planning for “Zero Hour” – their term for when the violent jihad will begin when the time is right.  They may wait until an outside influence from a foreign power or a major event initiates conflict, and then the Islamic Movement can begin the jihad and act independently or as an ally for a hostile foreign power such as Iran or China.

In the MB’s 5-Phase “World Underground Movement Plan” – discovered at the 2004 FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia – the Brotherhood states (Phase 2) they must “Establish a government (secret) within the government.”  The purpose of this is to have jihadis on the inside of our government who will serve as the leadership for the Islamic Movement when they seize power in the United States.  Until then, their role is to (1) gather intelligence and (2) conduct influence operations at all levels of the society, especially within the decision-making process.

As has previously been discussed, this is much more a counterintelligence and espionage issue than it is a “terrorism” matter.  The enemy is preparing the battlefield now for the eventual battle to come.

The U.S. Network

The evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008) reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are a part of a massive jihadi network whose stated objective is to wage “Civilization Jihad” to destroy our system of government and establish an Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia here.  The evidence also reveals the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers/Mosques are the places at which jihadi train for battle and from which the jihad will be launched.

All of the mosques our military entered during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and mosques that European authorities have raided in the last two years have had weapons in them.  The mosque is what Mohammad used a mosque for, and the launch point for jihad is one of those purposes.

There are over 2400 Islamic Centers/Mosques in America, most of which are a part of the MB’s jihadi network.

In the United States the “nucleus” for the Islamic Movement is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) whose subsidiary Islamic Societies number approximately 170.  The Muslim Students Associations (MSA) serve as a recruiting arm for jihadis, and there are over 700 chapters on nearly every major college campus in America.

Reports from around the country from civilian and law enforcement sources reveal:  Mosques and Islamic organizations are being built in strategic locations – near key infrastructure facilities, military bases, or some other key position in the community; taxi cab drivers at the largest airports in the U.S. are Muslim; and there is a noticeable increase in sharia-compliant Muslim TSA officers, baggage handlers and airline/airport employees at U.S. airports.

Additionally:  Muslims are purchasing hotels, quick marts, and 7-11 type stores with gas stations, and  a majority of major hotels in cities across the U.S. have a manager or assistant manager who is a Muslim, which is statistically impossible unless this activity is intentional.

Quick marts and gas stations provide their Movement with a logistics train that will be needed in a battle. Having people in leadership positions at major hotels in major cities, where law enforcement and intelligence groups and others hold conferences, serve as excellent intelligence gathering nodes.

Jihadis have penetrated U.S. federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies giving them access to sensitive intelligence systems, while simultaneously they have shut down real threat-based training inside these same agencies under the guise factual/truth-based training is “offensive to Muslims.”

Jihadis have themselves penetrated senior levels of the government (eg Suhail Khan working for two successive Secretaries of Transportation with access to classified critical infrastructure details), and have recruited senior U.S. government officials to promote and protect their interests which are hostile to the U.S. (most recent example – Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson promoting and defending leading MB organization ISNA and speaking at their annual convention expressly to open the door to more Cabinet officials to do the same).

Key jihadi organizations, like Hamas (doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations/CAIR) work on Capitol Hill and inside government agencies to keep truthful discussions about the Islamic threat from ever happening, while plotting to work with Al Qaeda (as evidenced by UTT’s Chris Gaubatz discovery of a CAIR document dated 3/08/04 at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. stating, “Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates”).

Now, the U.S. government is bringing tens of thousands of sharia adherent Muslims into our nation.  From the Islamic perspective, these people are Muhajaroun – those who make the hijra into the non-Muslim lands in preparation for the “Final Stage,” which is armed conflict with the host country.  This is all a part of their strategy, and is consistent with core Islamic doctrine.

Finally, we are currently observing the Marxist/Socialist Movement in the U.S. working directly with the Islamic Movement at the ground and strategic levels.  Both have publicly declared their support for one another, they are both receiving funding from hard-left Marxists/socialists (eg George Soros) and foreign powers, and both are openly pushing for confrontation with and the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The Islamic Movement in the United States is deeply embedded in the U.S. decision-making process, has thousands of organizations and allies, possesses a logistics train of fuel and supplies, conducts weapons training programs, has access to U.S. intelligence systems, is well funded (primarily by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc), has strategic plans for North America (An Explanatory Memorandum) and has a plan to implement the strategy (Implementation Manual) which they are following.

The U.S. response is to say “Islam is a religion of peace” and work with the very Muslim leaders who are driving this hostile network.

Victory is not possible with this recipe.

Each year there are between 70 and 120 new Islamic non-profits being created in America, most of which appear to be working directly in line with the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to wage civilization jihad until “Zero Hour” when the war goes hot.

Until then, they continue to prep the battlefield because they are really at war with us because they are following sharia – core Islamic doctrine – as their blueprint for what they are doing.

****

Muslim candidate for Congress envisions new civil-rights law some say would ‘loot’ taxpayers

Above is the flyer put out by Muslim organization EMGAGE promoting a fundraiser in Florida for Rashida Tlaib’s congressional candidacy in Michigan.

Rashida Tlaib says it’s time to rewrite Civil Rights Act of 1964, giving it more teeth

By Leo Hohmann, July 13, 2018:

A Muslim woman who is running for Congress says she has plans to expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a way that would shield “communities of color” from a whole host of negative outcomes, including racial profiling by police, utility shutoffs for delinquent bill-payers and the denial of a bank loan based on a bad credit score.

Rashida Tlaib, a 41-year-old attorney born and raised in Detroit by Palestinian immigrant parents, made history as Michigan’s first Muslim woman elected to the state legislature in 2008, winning two more terms after that. Now, she is looking for a promotion to the U.S. Congress, running in a special election for the seat vacated by disgraced Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who was forced to resign earlier this year after being accused of sexually harassing and molesting multiple women.

Conyers’ post, Michigan’s District 13, is a safe seat for Democrats that includes most of Detroit and Wayne County. But Tlaib is seeking to stand out from the crowded Democrat field by promising to offer a smorgasbord of unprecedented government freebies set aside exclusively for minorities.

Tlaib held a 4-to-1 fundraising advantage over her closest opponent, Westland Mayor Bill Wild, after the first quarter of 2018 by raising nearly $600,000.

Learn more about Rashida Tlaib, visit her campaign’s website.

She, along with Abdul Mohamed El-Sayed, who is running for governor of Michigan, is part of a new generation of young Muslims seeking to win political office by catering to a coalition of liberal blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, LGBTQs, college students and left-leaning women. This group also includes Ilhan Omar, the Somali woman seeking to fill a seat being vacated by Rep. Keith Ellison in Minnesota, where Ellison is running for attorney general, and Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, a black Muslim woman running for the District 1 congressional seat in Massachusetts.

Check out the glorious tweet issued by Minnesota’s Omar on the Fourth of July.

Sending the ‘middle finger’ to Trump

But, judging by their divisive rhetoric, it’s difficult to tell if these Muslim candidates are more devoted to Muhammad or Marx.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, shown here with his wife, is running for governor of Michigan as a Democrat.

In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, El-Sayed likened his gubernatorial campaign in Michigan to “a 215-pound middle finger to Donald Trump.” He derides Trump’s “America-first nationalist agenda” as “not what Michigan stands for.” [One look around metro Detroit and its massive vacant factories begs the question of how well globalism, the antithesis of “America-first,” has served the interests of hardworking Michiganders.]

That aggressive rhetoric extends not only to Trump but to anyone who supports him.

El-Sayed stated at a recent debate that Muslims “definitely hate” Patrick Colbeck, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Michigan whose policies most closely resemble those of Trump. El-Sayed said that, if elected, he will transform Michigan into a sanctuary state, just like California, rolling out the welcome mat for criminal illegal migrants.

Michigan has the nation’s highest concentration of Arab-Americans, the majority of whom are Muslim. Tapping into that deep pocket of Islamic voters in states like Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Texas and Florida has been a stated goal of Muslim groups such as EMGAGE, MPAC and JETPAC, all of which are pooling their resources to elect Muslims to public office nationwide in the November 2018 elections.

Even the liberal Detroit Free Press has indicated that El-Sayed’s candidacy for governor is more about “changing the national political conversation” by taking a slap at Trump than it is about helping Michigan solve its unique public-policy challenges.

Tlaib, El-Sayed, Omar and Amatul-Wadud all have the backing of people and entities tied to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, including EMGAGE, MPAC and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The rewriting of the Civil Rights Act proposed by Tlaib would allow pre-ordained “victims” to file punitive civil-rights lawsuits against state and local governments, police departments, banks, utilities and other businesses based on a so-called “disparate impact” on minorities. This means that the government or business could be deemed guilty of discriminatory practices merely by mathematical equations, without any proof of racial bias or ill intent.

For example, if blacks make up 30 percent of a county’s population but the county jail has a racial makeup of 60 percent blacks, that could be grounds for a racial bias lawsuit. The same goes for a bank’s foreclosure ratio or a city’s water shut-off ratio for various minorities. It must not exceed the racial makeup of the city, county or state or it will be called into question.

The changes would help to end practices such as “refusing car and home loans or insurance to people who live in low-income areas and have low credit scores; law enforcement profiling; sentencing inconsistencies; the use of credit scores to determine qualification for loans, insurance or employment; shutoffs of water and utility services and unfair tax assessments and foreclosures,” the Detroit News reports.

Tlaib admits such a law would be difficult to pass through Congress but promises to continue introducing the bill every year until it passes.

Rashida Tlaib

“Absolutely, it’s going to take me years, possibly several tries to succeed,” she told the News. But expanding the 55-year-old Civil Rights Act in such a way is something the Democratic base in Michigan’s 13th District would likely support, according to the newspaper.

It’s also something supported by Muslim Brotherhood offshoots such as EMGAGE PAC, which is raising money for Tlaib from outside the state. EMGAGE has a major fundraiser planned for her in Florida on Saturday, July 14.

In a flyer promoting the event, EMGAGE says Tlaib “aims to represent us at the federal level by serving economic justice to working-class people, expanding healthcare coverage, and increasing access to higher education.”

EMGAGE admits in the flyer that it is seeking to develop a “national network” of like-minded Muslims who will win political offices under the Democrat banner. It states:

“As Muslims, we must uplift each others’ voices not just in our own communities, but across the country. Michigan is one of the U.S states most heavily populated with Muslims and is therefore a vital part of our national network.

“Rashida Tlaib represents our values and wants to bring them to the U.S congress. We need to make sure we don’t miss this opportunity to play our part and make that happen.”

Imagine if Catholics or evangelicals sent out messages like this, encouraging the flock to contribute money toward the development of a “national network” of Catholic or evangelical politicians. It would be considered overtly xenophobic and small-minded, says Dick Manasseri, who is active in the Republican Party and a resident of Rochester Hills, Michigan.

Manasseri said El-Sayed was captured on tape early in his campaign describing himself as “left of left” and Michigan voters are not aware of just how far left and how anti-Jewish El-Sayed would be. He served as vice president of the rabidly anti-Semitic Muslim Student Association while studying medicine at the University of Michigan while his future wife, Sarah, served as MSA president. But they seek to downplay that part of their agenda during the campaign, Manasseri said.

“Abdul, as well as Rashida, are emphasizing their Bernie Sander’s qualities, hoping voters will not focus on their Muslim allegiance,” Manasseri said. “They are outspoken Democratic Socialists while quietly Sharia-compliant.”

Even if he loses, El-Sayed is only 33 years old and will no doubt run again for political office. Some leftist publications, such as the UK’s Guardian, have already crowned him the Democrat Party’s “new Obama.”

El-Sayed’s candidacy has been endorsed by the Muslim mother of hate, Linda Sarsour, who spews invective at the world’s only Jewish state at every opportunity and admonishes Muslims in America to not assimilate or accept American culture as anything but evil. She was a co-leader of the Women’s March on Washington that protested Trump before he’d even made his first policy move and more recently has been joining protests against ICE and any enforcement of existing immigration laws.

The Democrat Party’s ability to deliver “left of left” candidates in primary elections must be taken seriously following the stunning victory last month of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the fourth-highest ranking member of the Democrats’ House leadership team, Rep. Joseph Crowley in New York’s 14th Congressional District. Ocasio-Cortez, only 28 and a former Bernie Sanders campaign organizer, is part of the party’s “changing of the guard,” noted the New York Times. She openly advocates for not just liberalizing immigration laws, but abolishing them.

Tlaib is singing to the same choir when she talks about passing laws that would force banks and utilities to stop enforcing rules for certain protected classes – rules that have applied to everyone forever, such as the need to have good credit in order to qualify for a loan or keep your water turned on.

Among these younger candidates, there is no shyness in fighting for policies that are blatantly Marxist in nature, says Philip Haney, a retired Homeland Security immigration officer.

“I call it obscene hubris. There’s nothing about it that’s constitutional,” Haney said. “It’s contrary, it’s counter-constitutional, and of course it’s anti-American sovereignty. That’s what it’s all about is sovereignty. If you’re going to start giving away our resources to a certain protected class, that is not constitutional. It’s a form of looting. No cops, no borders, just a free for all, inviting the world to come and take whatever you want.”

It’s also like a woman reminding people at a party that her boyfriend can bench press 350 pounds. Islam has a reputation for not being afraid to use violence to advance its agenda.

“By invoking Islam they add an element of fury, because they feel they should have all the world’s wealth already,” Haney said. “And they believe we, America and the Western democracies, prevented them from getting it.”

Leo Hohmann is a veteran journalist and author of the 2017 book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.” If you appreciate this type of hard-hitting, factual and independent reporting, please consider a donation of any size to this website. We accept no advertising and are beholden to no one.

5 Key Takeaways From The House Hearing With FBI Counterintelligence No. 2 Peter Strzok

Photo Washington Post / YouTube

Yesterday’s joint hearing in front of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees was the first public hearing Congress held with the official who launched the Russia probe two years ago.

The Federalist, by Mollie Hemingway, July 13, 2018:

An embattled FBI official who led investigations into both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump testified in a cantankerous open hearing on the Hill yesterday. Peter Strzok, formerly the second in command of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, lost his position after texts he exchanged on government systems with his also-married lover and colleague Lisa Page revealed extreme bias against President Trump and his voters.

Yesterday’s joint hearing in front of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees was the first public hearing Congress held with the official who launched the Russia probe two years ago. Here are a few key takeaways from that hearing.

1. This Is What DOJ Obstruction Looks Like

The country is two years into the FBI’s probe of whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election. Not a single charge has been brought by the FBI or by the Office of Special Counsel alleging collusion or treason or anything close to the charges that supposedly necessitated this investigation.

Congress began asking some questions of the FBI and Department of Justice about how it was conducting the investigation. Through the oversight process, Americans learned that the infamous “dossier” that laid out a case of collusion was secretly bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. This dossier was used to secure wiretaps against Trump associates (other surveillance methods, including human informants, were also used).

The dossier was fed to both the FBI and State Department. Top intelligence officials were leaking about the Russia investigation to CNN and other media outlets. A top DOJ official’s wife worked for the firm that Hillary Clinton hired to run the “Russia” operation. That firm fed their opposition research to the FBI through him.

The Senate Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees, along with the Senate Homeland Security committee, House Oversight, and House Government Reform committees, have worked hard to uncover these details and in the face of unprecedented obstruction. Requests for documents are met with stonewalling, delays, redactions, leak campaigns, and outright refusals. Threats of subpoenas are routinely made to force even minor compliance.

Despite the length of yesterday’s hearing, congressional overseers were able to elicit almost no substantive answers to the questions they asked. Strzok claimed he was not answering questions because the Department of Justice told him not to answer questions. No matter the question, Strzok refused to answer any question about his role in the Russia probe, with almost no exceptions.

The hearing was a public revelation of the stonewalling and obstruction the DOJ has enforced against congressional oversight.

2. Strzok Somehow Came Off Even Worse Than He Did In His Texts

Despite his significant role in the Russia and Clinton investigations, the only picture Americans had formed of Strzok was based on his text messages. He spoke of his loathing of President Trump, Trump’s voters, and congressional oversight. He talked of stopping Trump’s election, of insurance policies to deal with his candidacy, and fantasies of impeachment.

The texts were between him and his also married colleague, another top-ranking official in the Department of Justice. The hearing demonstrated the texts were at best an accurate reflection of the man who wrote them. If anything, the texts were understated.

Strzok chose to present himself to the world as a smug, arrogant, and peevish man. He was defensive and condescending. His answers were almost mind-blowingly implausible. It wasn’t just that he lacked good judgment or even-handedness. It’s that he didn’t seem to have a grip on reality. He kept saying he wasn’t biased, when his bias is indisputable.

He told investigators that he would like to answer a question but that his attorneys weren’t letting him. If they later told him he could answer, he’d say he didn’t remember. He implausibly said that his affair didn’t put him at risk of compromise, in contrast to his agency’s policy.

3. Democrats Run Interference

Almost immediately, Democrats on the House and Government Reform Committee attempted to shut down the hearing. When that failed, they resorted to near-constant parliamentary inquiries and objections. At one point they actually cheered and applauded Strzok, despite his ethical failings and poor judgment, which have threatened the entire Russia investigation. The man is under internal investigation for his behavior. Yet one Democrat said he’d like to offer Strzok a Purple Heart, a military decoration awarded to those wounded or killed while serving in the U.S. military.

As silly as this behavior may seem, it indicated how Democrats hope to handle all oversight of the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Russia probe. The message went out that every hearing will be a clown-show, even by the typical grandstanding attendant to congressional hearings. Democrats on oversight committees have fought transparency of the Russia investigation, portraying it as obstruction of a legitimate probe. All signs indicate that opposition to oversight will continue.

4. DOJ Clearly Hiding Its Relationship With Democratic-Funded Smear Group

The FBI and DOJ frequently instructed Strzok not to answer substantive questions from Republicans. One line of inquiry pursued by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was regarding communication between the FBI and Fusion GPS, the group that concocted the “Russia” dossier and messaging plan on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. Strzok generally declined to answer questions.

But Strzok did admit that Bruce Ohr, husband of Fusion GPS operative Nellie Ohr, funneled documents to the FBI related to the Russia case. He refused to say what those documents were. Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Grassley asked DOJ to declassify the dozen reports summarizing Ohr’s 12 information-sharing meetings with the FBI.

The FBI used Fusion GPS-hired Christopher Steele until the end of October, when he was terminated for lying about his leaks to the media. But Fusion and Steele were able to continue funnelling information to the FBI using colleague Nellie Ohr and her husband Bruce Ohr, a top DOJ official who worked closely with acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

When the Russia story first broke, Americans didn’t realize that the dossier was a secret Clinton/DNC operation, or that the unverified opposition research was sent to various Obama officials in multiple agencies. Americans didn’t know that a top DOJ official was married to an employee of the group that created the dossier, or that he was used to get information into the government.

5. The Mystery Of Why The Investigation Started

Strzok said he didn’t see the dossier until mid-September. His electronic communication that started the probe didn’t include official intelligence. Given the politically explosive nature of the investigation, the FBI and DOJ have failed to explain what they were thinking in starting a probe of the Trump campaign.

The entire investigation has major problems from start to finish, whether it’s the use of a dossier that Steele created and Bruce Ohr sent to the FBI, or the fact that Strzok ended up having to be removed from the investigation for his obvious and extreme bias. Strzok said Mueller never asked him about his texts, and didn’t seek to find out more from him about what his “insurance policy” or “impeachment” rhetoric meant.

Again, the hearing was less than substantive because of the ongoing obstruction and stonewalling campaign engaged in by DOJ. That was itself instructive.

***

Also see:

On Islam Is on Target

(Photo credit: Islamic State / VOA)

Crisis Magazine, by William Kirkpatrick,, July 12, 2018:

One of the interesting aspects of Fr. James Schall’s refreshing collection of essays, On Islam, is that it provides a chronological record. The first essay appeared in 2003, the last in 2018. This allows the reader to see how our understanding of Islam has changed over those years.

Unfortunately, it hasn’t changed much at all. In 2003 we understood next to nothing about Islam, and in 2018 it’s still next to nothing.

One of Fr. Schall’s main themes is that we must try to understand Islam as Muslims understand it, not as we would like it to be. But instead of adjusting our theories to fit the accumulating facts, we keep trying to force the facts to fit the theory. This, says Schall, is the main reason we have failed to stem the tide of terrorism. We still assume that Islam is a religion like our own and that terrorism is a misunderstanding of genuine Islam.

On the contrary, writes Schall, terrorists are arguably more faithful to the essence of Islam than peaceful Muslims. As he puts it:

The terrorists themselves do claim with considerable historical and doctrinal evidence, on Qur`anic grounds, that they are in fact the true interpreters of Islam.

I don’t mean to oversimplify Fr. Schall’s argument. His essays are chock full of solid philosophical, theological, and historical evidence for his conclusions. But one of his conclusions is that:

advocates of the Islamic State are Muslims who faithfully follow what this religion allows and encourages them to do… To look on them as heretics or aberrations results in policies that only make the Islamic State’s success more likely.

Our insistence on seeing Islam through Western eyes, says Schall, means that we will be blind to the larger picture. Thus, “each bombing, shooting, knifing, or truck-crashing incident” is treated “as an individual problem of some usually ‘fanatical’ or otherwise confused youth acting on his own.” The authorities can’t bring themselves to admit that each incident is part of a pattern—that these actions are motivated by a world view that is shaped by the Koran and the example of Muhammad.

Likewise, the West’s leaders will fail to understand Muslim migration:

The trouble is that such large numbers of young and mostly male Muslims in every Western country are not there simply because they are poor or have been expelled…They are there to expand Islam.

“The purpose of Muslim expansion,” he continues, “is not to assimilate into a new nation and culture but rather to change it so that it conforms to Muslim ways.”

And what is the overall purpose of the expansion? Schall answers with refreshing candor: “Briefly, the assigned mission of Islam is to conquer the world for Allah.” But this simple truth about Islam flies in the face of politically correct and religiously correct notions that all religions are peaceful and opposed to violence. “To conquer the world for Allah?” Religious people, we assume, just don’t think like that. Thus, we convince ourselves that terrorist acts committed in the name of Allah, have “nothing to do with Islam.” “Dealing with Islam,” writes Schall, “is a function of understanding Islam,” and until we admit some very basic facts about Islam we will be unable to meet the challenge of Islam. The result? “I think it very possible, if not likely,” he writes, “that Islam will successfully establish itself in many areas of Europe and America.”

As might he expected, Fr. Schall also addresses the Church’s role vis-à-vis Islam. In an essay on dialoguing with Islam, he suggest that Church leaders, like secular leaders, fail to see Islam for what it is. Instead they prefer to look at it through Catholic eyes and have therefore convinced themselves that the two faiths have very much in common. But, says Schall, “What Islam and the Bible have in common is very little when it comes to doctrine … only with the greatest stretch of the imagination can we say that Muslims believe in the same God as Christians and Jews.” As a result, the dialogue is without resolution because there really is precious little common ground. For example, when Muslim and Catholic dialoguers use the word “peace,” they mean entirely different things. According to Islamic tenets, true “peace” will only come when all the world is Muslim.

Quite obviously, Schall’s position on Islam is at odds with the policies pursued by many in the Church leadership. He asserts that Islam is not a religion of peace, but of conquest. He maintains that terrorists are not misunderstanders of Islam, but are faithful to the plain meaning of the Koran. Moreover, he suggests that many Muslim immigrants to the West are not coming simply to find jobs or escape violence, but to convert the world to Islam.

What, then, does he suggest as an alternative policy? His general prescription is to replace the utopian view of Islam with a more realistic one. A viable Islam policy must be based not on what we wish Islam was, but on what it actually is.   Otherwise, things will continue as they have, and we must face the real prospect of a world converted to Islam.

Among other things, getting real means that Christians must insist that the Koran is not of divine origin. Moreover, they should do what they can to cast doubt about the Koran in the minds of Muslims. Why? Because the Koran is the key motivating force for jihad. The terrorism and the warfare will continue because that is what the Koran commands. The remedy, then, is not to assert that terrorists have misunderstood the Koran, but to assert that the book they follow is not from God:

The first step needed, then, is the affirmation, from the Christian side, that these views are as such false. They cannot be divine revelations.

As long as Muslims continue to believe that the Koran is the direct word of God, then the bloodshed will continue. It should therefore be the aim of Christians to disabuse them of this notion by means either subtle or direct. “What has never really been faced, even by the Church,” says the author, “is the truth content, or lack of it, in the Muslim world view…”

In the context of most current thinking about Islam, what Fr. Schall proposes here is quite radical. On the other hand, it also seems quite realistic. As Pope Francis put it in Evangelii Gaudium, “Ideas disconnected from realities give rise to ineffectual forms of idealism” (232). Unfortunately, the ideas that many Catholic leaders, including Francis, have about Islam seem to be based more on fantasy than reality.

In an essay entitled “On the Fragility of Islam,” Fr. Schall points out that the Koran is Islam’s weakest link. It’s authenticity as a direct revelation from God rests solely on the testimony of Muhammad. There is no other corroborating evidence. To the normal observer, says Schall, the Koran borrows heavily from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures: “Yet, if this historical origin is shown, then the Qur`an is merely the product of a confused effort to rewrite the Scriptures already in existence.”

Fr. Schall hopes that the eventual publication of a critical edition of the Koran by German scholars will make many of these problems evident. Possibly so, but there is already sufficient evidence in any standard edition of the Koran to cast doubt on the authenticity of the revelation. The Koran is almost completely lacking in chronology, continuity, and structure. At the same time it is full of mind-numbing repetition and formulaic prose. It strains credulity to believe that it was written—as Muslim scholars claim—by the Author of Creation.

Fr. Schall’s hope is that when all the many contradictions and incoherencies of the Koran become clear, “Islam may be as fragile as communism”:

Can we expect, as it were, a John Paul II effect, which saw a seemingly unbreakable communism suddenly collapse because its ideas were finally recognized as incoherent and evil?

Schall realizes that Islam is far older than communism and more resilient, and he admits that its fall is unlikely to come as quickly. Nevertheless, there is hope. Until the Iranian Revolution of 1979, there was a good deal of evidence that Islam was losing its hold on the Muslim world. Turkey had become a secular state, and many in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and other Muslim nations found Western values more attractive than Islamic ones. Sadly, this laxity of faith was the catalyst that spurred the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida, and other groups dedicated to returning Islam to its original zeal.

But memories of better, less-Islamic times remain. Recent events give hope that what has happened once can happen again. In the last several months there have been numerous large demonstrations throughout Iran calling for an end to the theocratic regime. And last week in Paris, 100,000 people participated in a “Free Iran” rally. One minor news story is also telling. A recent study of thirty three deradicalization programsin the UK showed that all but two were either ineffective or counter-productive. The two effective initiatives were, “one defying political correctness and tackling difficult issues head-on and the other directly addressing extremism in religious [Islamic] texts.”

The effective initiatives sound rather like the approach Fr. Schall advocates: tell the truth about Islam, and challenge Muslims to look more closely at the problems of the Koran. The ineffective initiatives resemble the ones the Church leadership has been pursuing. No one can accuse them of tackling difficult issues head-on. Indeed the only issues they tackle with gusto are Islamic-approved ones such as the anti-Islamophobia initiative. If Western leaders and Church leaders keep insisting that Islam is fine just the way it is, there will be very little incentive for Muslims to reform their faith or—if it is irreformable—to leave it.

If and when Church leaders come to the conclusion that their current approach to Islam is both ineffective and counter-productive, they will find in Fr. Schall’s gem of a book a clear guide to a more promising direction.

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily,and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

Also see: