Refugees or an Occupation Army?

Gatestone Institute, by Maria Polizoidou, October 11, 2016:

  • “Allah requires from the believers to be masters of the land where they live, and only they can have property, and only we will be able to own the land.” — Muslim migrants in Crete, Greece.
  • The migrants were ready to wage jihad because they believed a rumor about an event for which, even had it been true, the Greek State and its inhabitants had no responsibility.
  • The establishment in Greece is a miniature of the American establishment: politicians and institutions of government corrupted to the bones.
  • We Greeks have already been crushed by Islam, by the twentieth century genocide in Turkey and the more recent Turkish occupation of Cyprus, again with the world’s complicity.
  • What is happening in Greece, as in much of Europe, is actually a massive replacement of its population, its values and its way of life.
  • The mainstream political parties obey the self-destructive EU policies on immigration that could eventually cause the end of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian values of Europe, such as individual freedom, critical thinking and dispassionate inquiry.

What does an occupation army do when it is installed in a country? It occupies the land, forcing residents to follow its own way of life. It implements measures against the country’s inhabitants, it propagandizes its beliefs and uses force to have them imposed.

This, sadly, is what has been happening in Greece from the migrants who seem to “forget” that they are hosted in Greece and force the Greeks to feel like guests in their own country.

If someone is a war refugee or his life is in danger in his homeland, it would seem appropriate, when he arrives in the country which offers him asylum, to be grateful to this country, respect its history, its people its values and its laws. The same would hold true for an immigrant who wants to go to a country where he hopes he will find a better future.

In Greece, conversely, illegal immigrants — all of whom the media call “refugees,” apparently trying artificially to legalize them in the moral consciousness of citizens — have been occupying spaces that do not belong to them, using violence, blocking roads, committing crimes against public property, acting aggressively toward residents and the police, and saying that they feel offended when they see symbols that represent Christianity. The guests seem to be trying to take over the house.

A few weeks ago, 200 North Africans and Pakistanis rioted in the middle of the night, demanding to leave Mytilene Island. They were chanting, “Jihad! Jihad!”, smashing the residents’ cars in the center of the island and disrupting the local community. The migrants claimed that someone told them about the death of seven migrants on a ship, so they rose up against the authorities. The police and NGO workers explained that this was misinformation, but the 200 migrants were evidently not interested in hearing that. The migrants were ready to wage jihad because they believed a rumor about an event for which, even had it been true, the Greek state and its inhabitants had no responsibility. The authorities were unsuccessful at calming them down and trying to make them return to their living area.

As it turned out, there were no dead migrants; the uprising was a “mistake,” but the police and the locals had to spend the night tracking down refugees and migrants on the streets of Mytilene.

The illegal immigrants stated that the information about the seven dead migrants came through phone calls to them during the night. Police sources say, off the record, that this incident has all the hallmarks of covert “black operations.”

A few days later, on September 19, 2016, on Mytilene Island again, there was a new eruptionfrom migrants in the Moria district. This time, the information the migrants heard, which again turned out to be false, was that they were about to be returned to Turkey. Immediately they set fire to 16 acres of olive trees, as well as to the camp in which they were living.

Now 300 migrants, who had earlier escaped from their camp and tried to protest in the center of the island, were burning everything in the camp and the area around it, until the police stopped them and made them to return to the camp, where again they tried to burn everything.

Residents saw their groves of olive trees turn to cinders as well as much of the migrant camp, three shipping containers, clothing and footwear.

Some of the illegal immigrants were taking selfies during the burning and chanting, “Allahu Akbar” [“Allah is the Greatest”].

The Port of Mytilene Island was turned into a battlefield, where migrants and many Greek “leftists” tried to prevent the military contingent from lowering the Greek flag in front of the town’s old port. Many Greeks hate the national flag. They appear to prefer multinational states without any references to the state’s national foundations. They were chanting slogans and provoking both the military contingent and the people of Mytilene Island, who watched amazed from the opposite side of the road. It was a demonstration of power from behalf of “leftists” and illegal immigrants. Many citizens of Mytilene Island evidently could not stand to see the illegal immigrants and other Greeks provoke them and try to halt the lowering of the flag. So some citizens moved aggressively against them and engaged them in street fights.

Every Sunday morning on Mytilene Island, soldiers hoist the flag and in the evening, an hour before sunset, soldiers lower the flag. A week after this incident, thousands of Greeks gathered around the soldiers and the flag in Mytilene Port and were singing Greek National Anthem, showing their faith and honoring the national symbol. People are scared. They are gathering around the flag and the Army apparently because they feel they are losing their homeland and their sovereignty to the thousands illegal immigrants who have occupied their island.

On September 26, 2016, in the Tympaki region of the island of Crete, people found all over the streets quotes from the Quran. The text, signed by the “Muslim Brotherhood of Crete Island”,stated among other things:

  • “You are the senior people of the whole world, Only your faith counts and no one else has the right of life and death and ownership over every other person who dares to challenge your leadership and will not embrace your faith.
  • “Allah requires from the believers to be masters of the land where they live, and only theycan have property, and only we will be able to own the land.
  • “Allah said that we should conquer all the planet, and the faithful ones should own the land and the crops.
  • “Unbelievers cannot have land and crops because it belongs only to us – the believers.
  • “Unbelievers will have from us – as the holy Quran assures us – only alms.”

On the same day, September 26, in the Asprovalta region near the city of Thessaloniki, a 49-year-old man from France who came to Greece through Turkey was followed by police officers because he was suspected of being a jihadist. The moment he saw the police car, he rammed it, while chanting “Allahu Akbar”. [Allah is the greatest”] The attacker was arrested and the district attorney ordered his deportation.

A month ago, the inhabitants of Vavilon, a small village in Chios, another island that received a large number of illegal immigrants, decided to take the law into their hands, because, it seems, the state was not protecting them. The residents set up a militia to protect their families and their property from illegal immigrants. Within a week, they had recorded more than ten burglaries and vast property damage.

The media covers these disruptions only when they are like earthquakes, when one large one causes major disasters; the small ones are evidently not interesting. The same indifference of the media can also be seen regarding daily problems caused by the illegal immigrants. The media covers drug trafficking, conflicts between migrants of different Islamic doctrines, rebellions in migrant shelters, conflicts between countries and races, and underage boys and girls being raped. On September 24, in the Moria area of Mytilene Island, four 17-year-old migrants from Pakistan raped an underage Pakistani migrant, age 16, and recorded the rape with their phones. The police arrested the perpetrators, who had been blackmailing the boy before they raped him.

Illegal immigrants have also been blocking roads in many cities; halting traffic for hours. They occupy the roads whenever they feel like it; the police do not stop them and there are no arrests.

The Greek government has been friendly to the migrants. Illegal immigrants have, in an apparent demonstration of power, been asking Greek drivers to show their IDs and driver’s licenses. They have established checkpoints as an occupation army does. The government and the police did nothing to stop them. People showed their documents because of the great numbers of migrants; the drivers were evidently scared for their lives and their cars, and did not want things to get nasty. If you consider that the police were just watching all this passively, the drivers did not have much choice.

Another day, illegal immigrants blocked a road because they apparently did not have a good enough internet connection in the “refugee shelter.”

How would Americans feel if Muslim illegal immigrants living in America said that they were offend by the Statue of Liberty because she was not wearing a burqa?

The Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Hieronymus, last March removed his cross, the symbol of Christianity, from his vestments during his visit to the Port of Piraeus, in order, he said, not to “offend” the Muslim migrants.

Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens and All Greece is pictured distributing food to migrants at the Port of Piraeus. The Archbishop removed his cross from his vestments during the visit to Piraeus, in order, he said, not to “offend” the Muslim migrants. (Image source: HellasNewsTv video screenshot)

Who warned him that Muslim migrants would be offended by his cross? What would they do if the Archbishop visited them while wearing his cross? Would they kill him? Would they burn the city of Piraeus? They would wage jihad against the Greek people?

Why are we hiding the symbols of our faith from people who come illegally and uninvited into our countries? What power could make an Archbishop remove the symbol of his faith, apart from a country’s political power?

The problem in Greece is not only the government or the mismanagement of illegal immigration. All traditional mainstream political parties in Greece, directly or indirectly, have been encouraging illegal immigration and the transfer of huge Muslim populations into Greek society. They obey the self-destructive EU policies on immigration that could eventually cause the end of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian values of Europe, such as individual freedom, critical thinking and dispassionate inquiry.

We Greeks have already been crushed by Islam, by the twentieth century genocide in Turkey — that even now targets anyone not Muslim such as Christians, Alevis and Kurds — and the more recent Turkish occupation of Cyprus, again with the world’s complicity.

In spite of that, the mainstream political parties clearly do not care about protecting the nation, its identity or the safety of its citizens.

The establishment in Greece is a miniature of the American establishment: politicians and institutions of government corrupted to the bones, mainstream media and oligarchical fans of globalization. Greece is, in fact, being paid 198 million euros for the refugees.

The Greek establishment suffers from the same symptoms as Western European and American regimes. They no longer believe in the foundations of the Republic: “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”: the voice of the people is the voice of God.

The political establishment, when the public does not agree with their policies about illegal immigration and the protection of national identity, prefers to blame the voters for immaturity, stupidity or fascism. So as the voters persist in retaining their views for national identity and against illegal immigration, the elites in Greece are replacing the native population by giving the illegal immigrants citizenship.

That is their solution to the migration crisis and Greece’s economic meltdown, from failed authoritarian policies of the unelected, unaccountable and untransparent EU. What is happening in Greece, as in much of Europe, is actually a massive replacement of its population, values and way of life. There is only one way now to save what is left of Greece: The British way. Exit. Now.

Ten Years, and Slightly Less Alone


By Mark Steyn, October 10, 2016:

america-alone-cover-alt-rev-bTen years ago this coming weekend – October 16th 2006 – my book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It hit the bookstores and shortly thereafter the bestseller lists. This paragraph from early in the Prologue lays out the thesis:

Much of what we loosely call the western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands – probably – just as in Istanbul there’s still a building known as Hagia Sophia, or St Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate.

That’s just for starters. And, unlike the ecochondriacs’ obsession with rising sea levels, this isn’t something that might possibly conceivably hypothetically threaten the Maldive Islands circa the year 2500; the process is already well advanced as we speak. With respect to Francis Fukuyama, it’s not the end of history, it’s the end of the world – as we know it.

The clever chaps at The Economist called it “alarmist“, as did Tarek Fatah in my own magazine,Maclean’s. The Economist is as complacently globalist as ever, but Mr Fatah has since somewhat revised his view:

Steyn was right and I was wrong.

He’s, er, not wrong about that. America Alone did not get everything right. But, if you’d read it more attentively than The Economist did, Europe’s 2016 summer of terror would not have surprised you. Many influential persons did, in fact, read the book, including President George W Bush, Democrat vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, British Brexiteer Michael Gove, etc. But evidently Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel and many others did not – and so here we are, a decade later. All this week we’ll be marking the tenth anniversary by running a few excerpts from the book. Let’s start today with some more from that Prologue:

It’s the end of the world – as we know it. Does that make me sound as nuts as Al Gore and the rest of the eco-doom set? It’s true the end of the world’s nighness isn’t something you’d want to set your watch by.

Indeed. After running through some of the more apocalyptic predictions of Sixties and Seventies environmentalists, I concede:

None of these things occurred. Contrary to the doom-mongers, millions didn’t starve and the oil and gas and gold didn’t run out, and, though the NHL now has hockey franchises in Anaheim and Tampa Bay, ambitious kids are still unable to spend their winters knocking a puck around the frozen Everglades. But that doesn’t mean nothing much went on during the last third of the 20th century. Here’s what did happen between 1970 and 2000:

In that period, the developed world declined from just under 30 per cent of the global population to just over 20 per cent, and the Muslim nations increased from about 15 per cent to 20 per cent.

Is that fact less significant to the future of the world than the fate of some tree or the endangered sloth hanging from it? In 1970, very few non-Muslims outside the Indian sub-continent gave much thought to Islam. Even the Palestinian situation was seen within the framework of a more or less conventional ethnic nationalist problem. Yet today it’s Islam-a-go-go: almost every geopolitical crisis takes place on what Samuel Huntington, in The Clash Of Civilizations, calls “the boundary looping across Eurasia and Africa that separates Muslims from non-Muslims.” That looping boundary is never not in the news. One week, it’s a bomb in Bali. The next, some beheadings in southern Thailand. Next, an insurrection in an obscure resource-rich Muslim republic in the Russian Federation. And then Madrid, and London, and suddenly that looping, loopy boundary has penetrated into the very heart of the west. In little more than a generation.

1970 doesn’t seem that long ago. If you’re in your fifties or sixties, as many of the chaps running the western world today are wont to be, your pants are narrower than they were back then and your hair’s less groovy, but the landscape of your life – the look of your house, the lay-out of your car, the shape of your kitchen appliances, the brand names of the stuff in the fridge – isn’t significantly different. And yet that world is utterly altered. Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed nations had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30 per cent to 15 per cent. By 2000, they were at parity: each had about 20 per cent.

And by 2020…?

Well, by 2020, it will be impossible to compare statistics between “the Muslim world” and the west – because Islam is currently responsible for most population growth in English, French and German cities, and the principal supplier of immigrants to Canada, and already 25 per cent of the population of the European Union’s capital city, Brussels. Ten years ago, my line about mediation between Islam and the “host community” being the “principal political dynamic” in western Europe also struck many as “alarmist”, but after this last summer in Germany and France and Sweden it’s inarguable:

September 11th 2001 was not “the day everything changed”, but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On September 10th, how many journalists had the Council of American-Islamic Relations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain in their rolodexes? If you’d said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century’s principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.

This book is about the seven-eighths below the surface – the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are:

i) Demographic decline;
ii) The unsustainability of the social democratic state;
iii) Civilizational exhaustion.

Let’s start with demography, because everything does.

Just so. My argument was straightforward. The western world is going out of business because it’s given up having babies. The 20th century welfare state, with its hitherto unknown concepts such as spending a third of your adult lifetime in “retirement”, is premised on the basis that there will be enough new citizens to support the old. But there won’t be – so Europe decided to import the babies it couldn’t be bothered having itself. Ten years ago, one of the first interviews I did was with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal, on his TV show “The Journal Editorial Report“:

STEYN: Seventeen European countries have what demographers call lowest-low fertility, from which no society has ever recovered. That means they are basically not having enough babies.

And the way Europe is set up, they have these unsustainable social programs and welfare. And they imported the babies that they didn’t have. They imported them essentially from the North Africa and the Middle East.

So we’re seeing one of the fastest population transformations in history, whereby an aging ethnic European population is being replaced by a Muslim population. And the Muslims understand that, in fact, Europe, as they see it, is the colony now.

GIGOT: Is there any way that Europe can avoid being Islamacized in this way?

STEYN: Well, I think, to be honest, some of the Eastern European nations didn’t throw off communism in order simply to throw their lot in with the doomed French and Belgians and Dutch 15 years later. And I think Poland and Hungary and so forth, will be determined not to go down the same path that the West Europeans have.

That observation has been borne by the different reactions to the “refugee” “crisis” by, say, Germany and Sweden on the one hand and Poland and Hungary on the other.

GIGOT: Is the problem only demographics or is it somehow broader, a kind of lack of intellectual confidence, cultural confidence… I remember during the Cold War, there was a strain of pessimism about whether the West would prevail in that conflict. James Burnham, the great strategist, wrote about the suicide of the West.

And some people, as late as the late 1980s, were still saying we’re going to lose the Cold War. Yet we won that because the West had a great — demonstrated a lot of resilience, democratic resilience.

Why is this conflict, in your view, different?

STEYN: Well, I think we understood then, anyone who meet Czechs or Hungarians or Poles or any of these people on the other side of the Iran Curtain during the Cold War, understood that they actually had no dog in the fight. They weren’t interested. They weren’t interested in conquering the world.

And I think it is different now. I think the average Muslim does, in some basic sense, when he immigrates to the Netherlands, when he immigrates to the United Kingdom, when he immigrates to Canada or Michigan, wants eventually to live in a Muslim society in those places. And he expects effectively — I am not saying he wants to fly planes into buildings or any of that nonsense — but his expectation is that the host society will assimilate with him rather than the other way around.

And that’s a profound challenge in a way that communism wasn’t.

When America Alone came out all those years ago, another early interview was by the indefatigable Michelle Malkin for her then new Hot Air website. It stands up pretty well a decade later. Click below for Part One:

As you can see from the above video, time has beaten the hell out of me this last decade, although not Michelle – and not my thesis. This is the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, the west’s leaders still can’t talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly. And they’re increasingly disinclined (as Angela Merkel fumed to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg) to let you talk about it. Yet, for all the “human rights” complaints, and death threats from halfwits, and subtler rejections from old friends who feel I’m no longer quite respectable, I’m glad I brought up the subject. And it’s well past time for others to speak out.

If you haven’t read America Alone during its first ten years, well, you’re missing a treat. It’s still in print in hardback and paperback, and personally autographed copies are exclusively available from the SteynOnline bookstore.

Bill Warner, PhD: Vetting the Migrants

Published on Oct 4, 2016 by Political Islam

As Syrian refugees and other migrants are being brought to the US, we hear that we don’t need to worry about any nasty “terrorists” (jihadists, to use the right word), because they will be vetted.

We are worrying about the wrong kind of jihad. The “terrorist” is the least of our worries. Instead, we need to concern ourselves about the jihad of the increasing demands and use of Sharia. It is the Sharia that annihilates a native civilization. For an example, before the Sharia, Turkey was a Christian civilization. Today it is 99.7% Muslim. It was jihad that put the Sharia in place, and then, over the centuries, Christianity was annihilated.

Our vetting needs to focus on the Sharia, not just violence. The US has taken a stand against racial hatred, why not take a stand against Kafir hatred?
We need to say no to Sharia wife-beating, no to Sharia Kafir hatred, no to the Sharia killing of apostates, no to Sharia suppression of free speech, no to Sharia abuse of women.

When Islam came to Medina in the first migration, Medina was half Jewish and with some Arab Muslims. Five years later, Medina was totally Islamic and with no Jews. Annihilation by migration and Sharia is pure Sunna.

Why do we want American citizens who think our Constitution is haram (Sharia forbidden) and that Kafirs are scum? We need to vet all migrants and insist they repudiate political Sharia.

The oath of citizenship should read: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, sovereignty, religious legal system of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.


Austrian Activist Fights Charge of “Denigration of Religious Teachings” for Insulting Mohammed


Political correctness married to the Islamic concept of Slander is stifling free speech in the West

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 30, 2016:

Parts of the West are becoming so politically correct that if one even questions Islamic doctrine or a practice associated with Islamic culture one could face serious legal troubles.

An Austrian free speech activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff experienced this first-hand – after giving one of her seminars about Islam for the Austrian Freedom Party she was prosecuted for some of its contents. Apparently, an individual secretly recorded the speech and turned it in to the authorities. Then the public prosecutor went after Sabaditsch-Wolff for a number of statements. In the end she was allegedly charged for the “denigration of religious teachings” because she pointed out how Islam’s prophet Muhammad married a girl (Aisha) when she was six years old and had sex with her when she reached the age of nine years old, which Sabaditsch-Wolff essentially called pedophilia. Apparently, the judge decided what Muhammad did wasn’t pedophilia because Aisha was married to Muhammad until she reached eighteen years old. Sabaditsch-Wolff ended up being found guilty and had to pay a fine – she then appealed the case to several other court levels.

Even though one should be careful when comparing individuals of previous eras to today’s standards, Sabaditsch-Wolff’s criticism of Muhammad’s actions is based on Islamic texts and is legitimate (Sahih Muslim 8.3309). Are we seeing the courts in Austria citing “denigration of religious teachings” when a non-Christian takes issue with a Biblical fact about Jesus?

Or how about when unscriptural conspiracy theories arise surrounding Jesus and his teachings or any other individual in the Bible? Furthermore, when did Western courts become interpreters of Islamic texts? Sabaditsch-Wolff refers to a “hate speech narrative” that is being used “to silence the truth.”

Sabaditsch-Wolff believes that “you have to be intolerant of the intolerable.” These would include female genital mutilation (FGM), child rape, beating one’s wife and the like – whether they stem from Islam or any other religion, culture, etc. Sabaditsch-Wolff also talks about how women in Austria are taking extra security precautions because of the prevalence of migrants abusing women.

Western politicians need to be addressing these concerns. Unfortunately, a lot of them are worried about the political costs, but even if it cost them an election in the short-term it is worth it because the survival of Western civilization is at stake. When we can get punished for having a discussion based on facts and evidence, then we know that the West is heading toward destruction. It’s time to stop this madness before it’s too late.

Europe Needs A Strong America To Stop Multicultural Political Correctness, Says Austrian Activist [VIDEO]

Hacked Memos: George Soros Network Hyped ‘Islamophobia’ After Muslim Terror Attacks

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Sept, 28, 2016:

NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.

Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.

One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.

The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.

Here are some actions, as cited in the document:

*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.

*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.

* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.

* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.

* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”

The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.

The document reveals:

Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.

US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.

The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.

Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”

According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:

Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.

Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Joshua Klein.

Also see:

Weaponized Immigration

gh_1Front Page Magazine, by Michael Cutler, Sept. 22, 2016:

The United States is at war with international terrorists, who, as the 9/11 Commission noted, must first enter the United States in order to attack it.

Consider the preface of the official government report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United Statesthat begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Furthermore, although much has been made of the lack of integrity with respect to the U.S./Mexican border, the9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel observed that most terrorists had entered the United States through international airports and then committed visa fraud and immigration benefit fraud to embed themselves in the country.

Page 54 of the report contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot,” which makes these issues crystal clear:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

On Saturday September 17, 2016 terror attacks put international terrorism and immigration on the front page of newspapers across the United States and onto the “A Block” of television news programs.

On the morning of that last Saturday of summer, a bomb hidden in a garbage can detonated along the route of the “Seaside Semper Five,” a five-kilometer run and charity event along the South Jersey Shore waterfront to raise money for members of the United States Marine Corps and their families.  Fortunately, because the crowds were much greater than expected, the event was late in starting and so no one was injured.

On that Saturday evening, a bomb, constructed in part of a pressure-cooker, exploded in a dumpster in the Chelsea section of Manhattan where it had apparently been planted.  Shortly after the explosion rocked that trendy neighborhood of Manhattan a second bomb of similar construction was discovered just blocks away.

Both of these bombings and that third, unexploded bomb have been attributed to Ahmad Khan Rahami, a naturalized United States citizen who legally immigrated to the United States from his native Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, on that same Saturday evening, in Minnesota, allegedly Dahir Adan, an immigrant from Kenya, went on a violent rampage in the Crossroads Center shopping mall in St. Cloud, stabbing 9 innocent people.  His rampage ended when a police officer, Jason Falconer, confronted him.  Adan lunged at Officer Falconer who fired in self-defense, undoubtedly preventing a far worse attack.

According to an article published on September 19, 2016 in a local newspaper, the Star Tribune, during the attack Adan was wearing a security guard uniform and asked at least one of the victims if he was a Muslim.  Additionally, Adan was reported to have referred to Allah during the attack.

News reports assert he was 22 years old and beginning his third year at St. Cloud State University and was a member of the tight-knit Somalian immigrant community.

Information about the identity of this apparent terrorist was not provided by law enforcement authorities, but by his father who claimed that his son came to the United States some 15 years ago.

Aliens who enter the United States surreptitiously without inspection could be said to have entered the United States through America’s “back door.”  Most terrorists, however, enter the United States through America’s front doors located at the 325 ports of entry that are operated by CBP (Customs and Border Protection).

Both Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan were admitted into the United States through America’s “front door.”

Given the severity of the threats America and Americans face and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission it is incomprehensible that the failures of the lawful entry system and the systems by which applications for lawful status are adjudicated would face extreme scrutiny with the goal of insuring that these systems have real integrity.  Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Politicians from both political parties have repeatedly called for providing lawful status for unknown millions of illegal aliens whose true identities, backgrounds and possible affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations are unknown and unknowable.  There would be no way to interview millions of such aliens and certainly no way to conduct any field investigations.  This would create an open invitation to massive levels of fraud.

Should any doubt remain about the abject lack of integrity in the adjudications process, consider that on September 19, 2016 Fox News reported, “Watchdog: Feds wrongly granted citizenship to hundreds facing deportation” that focused on the findings of the Office of Inspector General for the DHS concerning how hundreds of aliens facing removal deportation had, instead, been granted United States citizenship.  These aliens were originally from countries identified as being “Special Interest Countries”- that is to say that these countries are associated with terrorism.

The report noted that of those who were able to game the naturalization process, some went on to acquire jobs, including in law enforcement where U.S. citizenship is a pre-requisite.

Not long ago I wrote an article about a naturalized Somali immigrant who had “made it” to the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists List.” The title of my piece was, “The Immigration Factor –Naturalized U.S. Citizen Added to FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List.”

The FBI is greatly concerned about this individual who is charged with providing material support and resources to al Qaeda and al Shabaab, a Somali-based terrorist organization.  Additionally, he had worked as a cab driver in Washington, DC and has an intimate knowledge of DC’s infrastructure and government buildings.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to admit Syrian refugees who, according to FBI Director, James Comey, cannot be vetted.  Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of such refugees admitted into the United States by more than 500%.

Clinton wants to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status which would require that USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to adjudicate all of these applications.

USCIS is the division of the DHS that is charged with adjudicating all of those applications for various immigration benefits including granting political asylum and conferring United States citizenship upon aliens.  This is the very same inept and and incompetent agency that naturalized hundreds of deportable aliens.

Repeatedly Hillary and her open borders / anarchist accomplices have invoked the issue of “compassion” to justify admitting huge numbers of refugees who cannot be vetted and providing illegal aliens who entered the United States covertly with lawful status, even though there would be no way to verify their identities, backgrounds, affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations or even determine when they actually entered the United States.

Terrorists have come to see in our compassion vulnerabilities they can exploit and use against us.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” included this paragraph:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

It is time for our government to secure our borders, enforce our immigration laws and disarm the terrorists who would kill our citizens and destroy our nation by depriving them the opportunities to enter the United States and embed themselves throughout our country.



Also see:

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: August 2016


Tanveer Ahmed (right), a Sunni Muslim, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the murdering Asad Shah (left), who belonged to the Ahmadi branch of Islam. Ahmed confessed to killing Shah in Glasgow because he claimed Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, September 19, 2016:

  • “To use the term ‘honor killing’ when describing the murder of a family member — overwhelmingly females — due to the perpetrators’ belief that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalizes murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction.” — Jane Collins, MEP, UK Independence Party.
  • Voter fraud has been deliberately overlooked in Muslim communities because of “political correctness,” according to Sir Eric Pickles, author of a government report on voter fraud.
  • “Not only should we raise the flag, but everybody in the Muslim community should have to pledge loyalty to Britain in schools. There is no conflict between being a Muslim and a Briton.” — Khalil Yousuf, spokesman for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.
  • Only a tiny proportion — between five and ten percent — of the people whose asylum applications are denied are actually deported, according to a British asylum judge, quoted in the Daily Mail.
  • Police in Telford — dubbed the child sex capital of Britain — were accused of covering up allegations that hundreds of children in the town were sexually exploited by Pakistani sex gangs.

August 1. Nearly 900 Syrians in Britain were arrested in 2015 for crimes including rape and child abuse, police statistics revealed. The British government has pledged to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK by the end of 2020. “The government seems not to have vetted those it has invited into the country,” said MEP Ray Finch. The disclosure came after Northumbria Police and the BBC were accused of covering up allegations that a gang of Syrians sexually assaulted two teenage girls in a park in Newcastle.

August 1. Male refugees settling in Britain must receive formal training on how to treat women, a senior Labour MP said. Thangam Debbonaire, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees, called for a “refugee integration strategy” so that men “understand what is expected of them.” She said it could help prevent sexual harassment and issues “including genital mutilation.”

August 2. Jane Collins, MEP for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), launched a petition calling for the BBC to stop using the term “honor killing.” The petition says the term “cultural murder” should be used instead. It states:

“To use the term ‘honor killing’ when describing the murder of a family member — overwhelmingly females — due to the perpetrators’ belief that they have brought ‘shame’ on a family normalizes murder for cultural reasons and sets it apart from other killings when there should be no distinction.

“Murder is murder, whether it be for cultural excuses or others. The term ‘honor killing’ is a euphemism for a brutal murder based on cultural beliefs which have no place in Britain or anywhere else in the world.”

August 3. Zakaria Bulhan, a 19-year-old Norwegian man of Somali descent, stabbed to death an American woman in London’s Russell Square. He also wounded five others. Police dismissed terror as a possible motive for the attack, which they blamed on mental health problems. But HeatStreet, a news and opinion website, revealed that Bulhan had uploaded books advocating violent jihad on social media sites.

August 4. A public swimming pool in Luton announced gender-segregated sessions for “cultural reasons.” The move will give men exclusive access to the larger 50-meter pool, while women will have to use the smaller 20-meter pool. The gender-segregated sessions are named ‘Alhamdulillahswimming,’ an Arabic phrase which means “Praise be to Allah.” UKIP MEP Jane Collins said the decision to have segregated times for swimming was “a step backwards for community relations and gender equality.” She added:

“The leisure center said this is for cultural reasons and I think we all know that means for the Muslim community. This kind of behavior, pandering to one group, harms community relations and creates tension. Under English law we have equality between men and women. This is not the same in cultures that believe in Sharia Law.”

August 5. Egyptian members of the Muslim Brotherhood may be allowed to seek asylum in Britain, according to new guidance from the Home Office. The document states that high profile or politically active members

“may be able to show that they are at risk of persecution, including of being held in detention, where they may be at risk of ill-treatment, trial also without due process and disproportionate punishment…. In such cases, a grant of asylum will be appropriate.”

The new guidance contradicts previous government policy. In December 2015, then Prime Minister David Cameron said Britain would “refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extremist comments.”

August 5. Stephen Bennett, a 39-year-old father of seven from Manchester, was sentenced to 180 hours of community service for posting “grossly offensive” anti-Muslim comments on Facebook. One of the offending comments: “Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.” He was arrested under the Malicious Communications Act. The judge said Bennett, whose mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslims, was guilty of “running the risk of stirring up racial hatred.” He described it as “conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country.”

August 6. British MPs face a six-year alcohol ban when the Palace of Westminster, which has dozens of bars and restaurants, undergoes a multi-billion-pound refurbishment beginning in 2020. They will move to an office building operating under Islamic Sharia law. Their new home, Richmond House, is one of three government buildings which switched ownership from British taxpayers to Middle Eastern investors in 2014 to finance a £200 million Islamic bond scheme — as part of an effort to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance. Critics say the scheme effectively imposes Sharia law onto government premises.

August 8. Lisa Duffy, a candidate to succeed Nigel Farage as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), called for a ban on Muslim women wearing a veil in public buildings, shopping centers and on buses and trains. She also demanded that Islamic faith schools be closed to combat radicalization, as well as a “complete and comprehensive ban” on Sharia courts in the UK. She said the veil is “a symbol of aggressive separatism that can only foster extremism” and claimed that it is often “forced on women by men who view them as their property.”

August 8. Stanley Johnson, a former Conservative MEP and Chairman of the European Parliament’s Intergroup Group on Animal Welfare, called for all halal meat offered for sale in the UK to be clearly labeled as such. He wrote:

“The halal market is worth £2.6 billion in Britain alone, and the export market is also growing particularly in the Middle East. Most of us eat halal meat unwittingly on a daily basis, since it is sold in most major outlets, including big brand-name supermarkets, without being labelled as such.”

August 9. Tanveer Ahmed, a 32-year-old taxi driver from Bradford, was sentenced to 27 years in prison for the “barbaric, premeditated” murder of a shopkeeper in Glasgow. Ahmed admitted to repeatedly stabbing Asad Shah to death outside his shop in March 2016 in a sectarian attack motivated by hatred of Shah’s religious views.

Ahmed, a Sunni Muslim, confessed to attacking Shah, who belonged to the Ahmadi branch of Islam, which believes Mohammed was not the final Muslim prophet. As he was led from the dock, Ahmed raised a clenched fist and shouted in Arabic: “Praise for the Prophet Mohammed, there is only one Prophet.” His cry was repeated by supporters in the public gallery.

Read more

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

A Bloody Day of Muslim Refugee Terror


Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 20, 2016:

The wave of Muslim refugee terror began with a bomb targeting a U.S. Marine charity run in New Jersey. By evening a pressure cooker full of shrapnel has exploded outside a Manhattan building for the blind. An hour later, a rampaging Muslim terrorist began stabbing people inside a Macy’s, asking them if they were Muslim and shouting the name of “Allah,” the genocidal Islamic deity of mass murder.

And that was one Saturday, two Muslim refugees and a wave of national terror 1,200 miles apart.

What did Elizabeth, New Jersey and St. Cloud, Minnesota have in common?

New Jersey has the second largest Muslim population in the country. This isn’t the first time it was used as a staging ground for Muslim terror.

11 of the 19 September 11 hijackers hung out in Paterson (known colloquially as Paterstine). Head toward Jersey City and you can see where Muslim enemies of this country stood on rooftops and cheered the attacks on September 11. It’s also where the World Trade Center bombing mastermind and the Blind Sheikh who provided religious guidance for a proposed wave of Islamic terror operated.

Go south and in Elizabeth you can pass the First American Fried Chicken joint where the Rahami clan made life miserable for their American neighbors before one of their spawn began his bombing spree.

New Jersey is a map of Muslim terror plots because of its huge Muslim population.

Ahmad Khan Rahami came to America as the son of an Afghan refugee. He stabbed a man two years ago. His family was a local nuisance who cried “Islamophobia” at the least provocation. His brother was a Jihadi sympathizer and may have fled the country after assaulting a police officer. By the time Ahmad was done, he had wounded a police officer and 29 other people. If his plot had succeeded, he might have pulled off the largest Muslim terror atrocity in the country since September 11.

Sadly, Syrian Muslim “refugees” continued to be dumped in Elizabeth, NJ to seed the next wave of Muslim terror. The International Rescue Committee, one of the two largest migrant agencies plaguing the Garden State, is based in Elizabeth, 8 minutes away from the Rahimi chicken place.

Last year Erol Kekic, the head of the group, insisted that the issue would “blow over.” Instead of blowing over, it’s blowing up.

Minnesota has suffered from the presence of the largest Somali migrant population in the country. And so a state which used to be known for its Swedish and German immigrants instead became a recruiting ground for ISIS and Al-Shabab. Al-Shabab, which is aligned with Al Qaeda, attacked the Westgate mall in Kenya a few years ago. The Somali killers quizzed their victims to distinguish Muslims from non-Muslims.

Dahir Adan, the Somali Muslim migrant who invaded America from a refugee camp in Kenya, attempted to duplicate that attack, asking those he stabbed at the Crossroads Mall if they were Muslims.

Dozens of Somali migrants in America have joined Al-Shabab and ISIS. The only difference between Dahir Adan and them is that instead of getting on a plane back to his native Somalia to join the local Jihadists, he carried out his Jihad against the nighttime shoppers in a Macy’s.

The Crossroads attack was the tragic price paid by innocent people for Muslim refugee resettlement.

Muslim Somali migration dramatically increased under Obama, rising from 2,500 in 2008 to around 8,000 and 9,000 in the last few years. Somali settlers represent almost 1 percent of the population of Minnesota. Most of the “refugees” dumped in St. Cloud were Somalis migrants and Lutheran Social Services has taken the lead in inflicting Somalis on the unfortunate natives of St. Cloud.

From the very beginning of their arrival, the Somali colonists were a problem for the people of St. Cloud. They displaced American workers and clashed with the native population. In this decade, St. Cloud has become 10% Somali. The Crossroads attack was the inevitable result of that demographic growth.

What happened in New Jersey and Minnesota is the same thing that has been happening in Europe. Islamic terrorism is caused by Muslim migration. As the Muslim population grows, so does its terror.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton had declared that the Somali occupation of the state is here to stay. “Minnesota is not like it was 30, 50 years ago,” he sneered. “Anybody who cannot accept your right to be here should find another state.”

Now Dayton has condemned the “religious bigotry” that motivated the Crossroads attack and declared that, “There is no place in Minnesota for intolerance of all Americans’ constitutional right to worship according to their beliefs.”

But the preferred mode of worship of Dahir Adan came from the religious book that he listed as his favorite, the Koran. “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” (Koran 9:5), “Strike upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip,” (Koran 8:12) and “Fight them until there is no unbelief and the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Koran 8:39). Islamic worship is murdering those who exercise religious freedom. That’s what Dahir Adan was doing at the mall when he asked his victims if they were Muslims.

You can have religious freedom or Islam. You can have the Constitution or the Koran. But you can’t have both.

“I ask everyone in the St. Cloud area and throughout Minnesota to rise above this atrocity and act to make religious and racial tolerance one of the ways in which Minnesotans again lead our country,” Governor Dayton has said. If he and other Minnesotans really want religious tolerance, then the only possible way to achieve it is by ending the disastrous settlement of Somali Muslims in Minnesota.

The anniversary of September 11 has come and gone. And we have learned nothing from the experience. The cesspools of Muslim terror in New Jersey have only grown. And no amount of moments of silence will clean them up. The latest terror plot in New York City originates from the same swamp.

Meanwhile peaceful states like Minnesota have become terror hubs through refugee resettlement.

Refugee resettlement is becoming our biggest terror threat. Obama wants to hike next year’s refugee admissions to 110,000. That’s a 57% increase since 2015. The summer’s statistics showed that more Muslims were being admitted as refugees than Christians.

This weekend’s wave of terror is the result of our refugee policy. And that policy is getting worse.

Ahmad Khan Rahami and Dahir Adan were the products of our refugee policy of yesteryear. Today’s refugee policy will have far deadlier consequences and produce far more terror attacks.

Saturday was a bloody day of Muslim terror, but as the red tide of Muslim migration washes up on our shores, every day in our future will be a day of Muslim terror.

Only ending Muslim migration can stop that.


Robert Spencer Moment: If You Don’t Want to Assimilate, Don’t Come


By Jamie Glazov:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents the Robert Spencer Moment with Robert Spencer, the Director of and the author of the new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS.

Robert discusses If You Don’t Want to Assimilate, Don’t Come, revealing how non-Muslims in the West are being made to conform to Islamic sensibilities – and starting to fight back.

Also see:

Germany’s Immigration-Skeptic Party Beats Merkel’s Ruling Party in State Election

019014732_30300In the district that Merkel herself hails from, the Alternative for Deutschland party reduced Merkel’s party to a third-place showing.

CounterJihad, Sept. 5, 2016:

Germany has a Federal system of government, in which a number of states exist and govern areas of the country, while an overarching Federal government handles foreign affairs and other powers.  The next general election for Germany’s Federal government is just over a year away, and between now and then there will be votes in the several states.

In one such vote this weekend, Germany’s current ruling party was reduced to third place.  It happened in the state that Prime Minister Angela Merkel has served for 25 years.

What does this new, successful, insurgent party want?  The Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) wants a Germany that remains German.

In May 2016, the AfD adopted an explicitly anti-Islam policy, and its programme (in German) has a section explaining why it believes “Islam does not belong to Germany”.

There is no room for Muslim practices and beliefs that go against “the free, democratic social foundation, our laws and the Judaeo-Christian and humanistic bases of our culture”, it says.

So the AfD would ban foreign funding of mosques in Germany, ban the burka (full-body veil) and the Muslim call to prayer, and put all imams through a state vetting procedure.

“Moderate” Muslims who accept integration are “valued members of society”, the programme says. But it argues that multiculturalism does not work.

Naturally the international press is understanding this German nationalism as a sort of echo of Nazi politics.  The BBC report cited above mentions that AfD members often clash with the press, calling them “‘Luegenpresse’ (‘lying press’), which has echoes of the Nazi era.”  This is one of those occasions when Nazi analogies turn out to be unreasonably weak.  Accusations that the press has been unfair in its coverage of them are universal among insurgent political parties of any ideological stripe, and are often warranted.  As invaluable as a free press is to a free society, it has the same human tendencies to curry favor with the powerful and dismiss those seen as ‘on the fringe’ as anyone else.

Meanwhile, the concerns over mass immigration have a rational element to them, reports none other than Al Jazeera:

“I am voting AfD. The main reason is the question over asylum-seekers,” a pensioner and former teacher who declined to be named told AFP news agency.

“A million refugees have come here. There is money for them, but no money to bring pensions in the east to the same levels as those of the west,” he said, referring to the lower retirement payments that residents of former Communist states receive compared with those in the west.

If it is already the case that Germany is suffering from an official inequality in its welfare system that it is unable to rectify, it makes no sense to swell welfare rolls.  Likewise, the AfD plan to insist that Muslims who come to Germany must endorse its version of the Constitution — “the Basic Law” — as binding regardless of religious views is merely to ask of immigrants what is asked of everyone else.  It would be impossible to manage a stable society with a large and growing element that rejected the basic law of the land where it conflicted with their religious values.

Hungary’s Prime Minister, who has very similar values, has called for a referendum on the question of whether it is appropriate for a European country to value its ethnic and religious heritage.

“We don’t want to change the character of our country,” Orban said. “We want to remain Hungarian, to keep our religious and ethnic composition. That view isn’t popular in Europe nowadays, at least among politicians.”

A clear referendum result would help to convey that message to Brussels, he said. “They want to force rules on member states that are in conflict with their interests, including Hungary’s. We are preparing for a conflict,” he added.

Hungary’s “basic law” actually contains a provision mandating that the government always view Hungary as chiefly the home for Hungarians.  The question that Merkel’s influence in Europe is bringing to the fore is whether such a constitution is permitted any longer in the new Europe.  Orban and the AfD argue not only that it is, but that it ought to be.  Voters seem to be coming around to their view.

Also see:

Islamists Smiling at a Financially Distressed Europe


How can Europe even educate the vast influx?

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 29, 2016:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door immigration stance has cost Germans dearly – especially in regards to the sexual assault crisis, and the financial burden on German taxpayers. One assessment places a figure on the projected extra cost of educating refugee children in Germany at 67 billion Euros – signaling impending financial hardship. Breitbart provides some context for the number:

Around 40 per cent of the million+ people who arrived in Germany last year are believed to be 20 or younger, meaning the country could need up to 25,000 new teachers while migrant children are denied places because schools are already full.

Dieter Dohmen, president of the Research Institute for the Economics of Education and Social Affairs, said the report showed the challenge facing German authorities.

“We have done some new calculations which put the full cost of refugees coming to Germany at €67 billion through their whole education pathway,” he said.

“If we look at the numbers so far some 200,000 have to go to kindergarten while another 300,000 will have to go to school. Then there is vocational education and training and higher education.

“If you look at someone who is three, they have to go to childcare, primary, secondary and higher education so this is a figure for the next 20 years.”

The Australian also adds:

The as yet unpublished study anticipates that up to 1.5 million refugees aged 20 and under will enter Germany’s education and training system by 2020. It includes the cost of higher education in a country where university tuition is provided free of charge. The bill for 2016 is put at euros 15 billion.

This study apparently only deals with educating and training kids or young adults that are twenty years old and younger.  Factoring in other refugee costs like government assistance for adult refugees who are unemployed raises that 67 billion Euros figure significantly. One can easily see that leftist immigration policies mixed with a European welfare system makes for a disaster, which gives Islamists and jihadists further reason to exploit this ‘migration’ crisis as much as possible.

Islamists are using this latest migration of Muslim refugees to further their long-term strategy known as “civilization jihad” – seeking to slowly change society from within so that it accords with the norms of Islam. By changing the demographics in favor of Islam they can take a major European country like Germany, with a Muslim population approaching five million people, and use it to Islamize the European Union.

With Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the helm of Turkish political power, the Islamists have a key player pushing this Islamization of Europe. It’s time for leaders like Merkel to realize that the continuation of the same policies will cause the Germany of tomorrow not only to be bankrupt, but also Islamic.

Of Course There Should Be an Ideological Test in Immigration


National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 20, 2016:

Imagine an American government official, interviewing an alien seeking admission to our country from, say, Syria:

U.S. official: “Will you support the United States Constitution?”

Syrian alien: “Well, sure, except that I believe the government should be overseen by a caliph, who must be Muslim and male, and who must rule in accordance with Islamic law, which no man-made law may contradict. None of this ‘We the People’ stuff; Allah is the sovereign. Non-Muslims should not be required to convert to Islam, of course, but they must submit to the authority of Islamic law — which requires them to live in the second-class status of dhimmitude and to pay a poll tax for that privilege.”

“I also believe women must be subservient to men, and that men are permitted to beat their wives if they are disobedient — especially if they refuse sex, in which they must engage on demand. There is no such thing as marital rape, and proving non-marital rape requires testimony from four male witnesses. Outside the home, a woman should cover herself in drab from head to toe. A woman’s testimony in court should be worth only half of a man’s, and her inheritance rights similarly discounted. Men should be able to marry up to four women — women, however, are limited to marrying one man.”

“Oh, and Muslims who renounce Islam should be put to death . . . as should homosexuals . . . and blasphemers . . . and adulterers — at least the ones we don’t let off with a mere scourging. The penalty for theft should be amputation of the right hand (for highway robbery, the left foot is also amputated); and for drinking alcohol, the offender is to be scourged with 40 stripes.”

“There are a few other odds and ends — you know, jihad and whatnot. But other than that, will I support the Constitution? Sure thing.”

U.S. official: “Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on a second. That’s not supporting the Constitution. That would be destroying the Constitution.”

Syrian alien: “Yeah, maybe so. But it’s my religion.”

U.S. official: “Oh, your religion. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were spouting some anti-American political ideology. But as long as you say it’s your religion, no problem. C’mon in!”

This conversation is impossible to imagine because . . . it would be honest. In the decades-long onslaught of radical Islam against the United States, honesty went out with the benighted notions that we should “know thine enemy” and, God forbid, train our national-security agents in that enemy’s ideology, methods, and objectives.

In our alternative universe, you are not supposed to remember that there is an American constitutional framework of liberty, popular sovereignty, and equality before the law.

You are not supposed to realize that aliens are expected to exhibit fidelity to this constitutional framework as a precondition to joining our society.

You are not supposed to know that there is an Islamic law, sharia, that has far more to do with governance, economics, warfare, civil rights, domestic relations, criminal prosecution, and fashion than it does with spiritual life.

And you are absolutely not supposed to grasp that sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves, live as they see fit, and chart their own destiny.

You are not supposed to connect the dots and ask, “Well, how is it conceivable that any sharia-adherent alien could faithfully pledge allegiance to our Constitution?”

So, instead, we shrug our shoulders, mumble something about “freedom of religion,” and bury our heads back in the sand — as if the structure of government and the decision of which limb to smite for which larceny had anything to do with religion in a free society that rejects the establishment of any state religion and separates spiritual from political life.

Sharia is not religion. Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose. Yes, their motivation for doing so is their interpretation of their religion — the fundamentalist, literalist construction of Islam. But that does not make sharia itself a matter of “religion” in the Western sense, even if vast numbers of Arab Muslims — for whom there is no cognizable separation of mosque and state — say otherwise. If Karl Marx had said, “The workers must control the means of production because God says so,” that would not have transmogrified the tyranny of Communism into the “freedom of religion.”

Two things flow from this.

The first involves immigration. As we’ve previously demonstrated, there is no constitutional prohibition against considering religion in deciding which aliens to allow into the United States — immigration is a privilege, not a right; and our Constitution is security for Americans, not a weapon for aliens to use against Americans.

Nevertheless, even if there were a constitutional bar against “religious tests,” sharia is not religion. There are no constitutional constraints against excluding aliens on grounds of anti-American political ideology. Excluding anti-Americans from America is common sense and was regarded as such for much of our history. In a time of radical Islamic threat to our national security, Donald Trump is right to propose that aliens from sharia-supremacist areas be carefully vetted for adherence to anti-constitutional principles.

Leftists — those notorious disciples of the Framers — claim this is unconstitutional. When shown it is not, they claim that it is against our “tradition” — being, you know, big fans of American tradition. When shown that this is not the case either, when shown that our history supports ideological exclusion of anti-Americans, leftists are down to claiming, “It is not who we are” — by which they always mean it is not who they are, and who they would force the rest of us to be.

A short lesson in how we got to be who “we” are. In the last decades of the Cold War, it became progressive dogma that the Soviet Union was forever, that it was an empire we could do business with, arrive at a modus vivendi with. The real evil, the Left decided, were the anti-Communists — it was their provocations against the Soviets, not the Soviets themselves, that could trigger Armageddon. Therefore, they reckoned, we needed to do away with all this overheated nonsense about how Communists seek the violent overthrow of the United States. That, to the Left, was just a bunch of ideological mumbo-jumbo that nobody ever really took seriously (even if Bill Ayers hadn’t gotten the memo).

One major consequence of this conventional wisdom was the campaign waged by leading Democrats to eliminate radical ideology as a basis for excluding aliens. They championed laws decreeing that “mere” radical ideology, in the absence of some provable connection to violent action, should not bar radicals from entering our country. Thus, the “principle” that America must not vet would-be immigrants for anti-Americanism is not derived from the U.S. Constitution, from our traditions, or from who “we” supposedly are. It stems from the Left’s conviction that Communist ideology was not a real threat to America.

Then, about 14 months after the Soviet Union collapsed, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. They have been attacking us ever since. See, however you come out on the question of whether Communists really posed a violent threat to our national security, there cannot be such a question with respect to radical Islam. The front line of that movement is the mass murderers, not the professors. With radical Islam, the threat of violence is not an abstract academic proposition. It is our reality.

What’s more, we know from hard experience, and from observing Europe’s new reality, that the threat is not just the jihadists. Equally important are the sharia-supremacist ideologues who seek to forge autonomous enclaves where sharia becomes the de facto law, and where jihadist radicalization, recruitment, fundraising, and training have safe haven. Our legitimate worries are not limited to the trained jihadist who infiltrates today; they include the sharia supremacist who will get his hooks into young Muslims and turn them into the trained jihadists of tomorrow.

The second thing to consider is Islam. As Robert R. Reilly unfolded in his essential book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, there is an Islamic tradition of rational inquiry, deeply influenced by Greek philosophy, that has been overwhelmed for nearly a millennium by the fundamentalist tradition. The rationalists may be out-muscled, but they are not dormant. They are Muslims who embrace Western culture, reject the imposition of antiquated sharia as a system of law and governance, and challenge the premises and the aggression of the fundamentalists. They are Muslims who, I can attest, help us infiltrate terror cells and prevent attacks. They are Muslims who fight in our armed forces, work in our intelligence services, serve in our police departments, and thrive in our economy.

We do not have to exaggerate their numbers to recognize that these Muslims exist and that they are our allies — that they are part of us. To appreciate their value and their contributions to our society, we do not need to pretend that they typify Islam as it is lived in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or the no-go zones of Paris.

If we want to win the crucial ideological component of radical Islam’s war against us, we should be empowering these pro-Western Muslims rather than inviting the sharia-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood into our policy-making councils. Like protecting our nation, empowering pro-Western Muslims requires an immigration system that welcomes those who will support our Constitution, and turns away those who would sweep it aside.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Also see:

Refugee Resettlement Industry’s Propaganda Campaign Accelerates with DC Rally



Breitbart, by Michael Patrick Leahy, Aug. 16, 2016:

The politically powerful refugee resettlement industry is accelerating its propaganda campaign to significantly increase the number of Muslim refugees allowed into the United States with a rally in Washington, D.C., on August 28.

“You have got to hand it to them (to the likes of George Soros and big progressive funders like the Tides Foundation), they know how to promote a propaganda campaign,” Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch says of the August 28 event.

The financial backers of the rally include most of the big political players in the lucrative refugee resettlement industry, where government funded “voluntary agencies” [VOLAGs] receive more than $1 billion from taxpayers annually to resettle on average 70,000 refugees each year in the United States.

Among those rally sponsors on the VOLAG federal gravy train are the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (whose local affiliate is currently embroiled in the Twin Falls, Idaho refugee rape controversy), Church World Service, the International Rescue Committee, World Relief, HIAS (formerly known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), the Episcopal Church, and the Ethiopian Community Development Council, Inc.

Other well known far-left groups sponsoring the event include the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the George Soros-funded National Immigration Forum, Sojourners, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

According to its website, “In the midst of the greatest refugee crisis since WWII, advocates from across the country will gather at DCRally4Refugees, August 28, 2016 at the outdoor Sylvan Theater at the Washington Monument on the National Mall in Washington, DC, . . . (rain or shine)”:

The rally will raise awareness about the magnitude of the global refugee crisis, encourage advocacy and U.S. action to alleviate suffering through relief efforts and support, and stand in solidarity with refugees and displaced people worldwide. Anyone is encouraged to join the #SeaOfOrange, buy a T-shirt, attend the historic rally and use #DCRally4Refugees to show support.

Steps from the U.S. Capitol, DCRally4Refugees will call on the U.S. to provide more refugee resettlement and increased support to countries and organizations already involved, support proven relief efforts overseas, and offer resources for those who wish to help, raising a collective voice against intolerance.

The organizers claim that “DCRally4Refugees was inspired by Americans who traveled to Greece and volunteered directly with refugees fleeing war and violence in Syria and other countries”:

After bearing witness to the suffering of millions and hearing the voices of fear and intolerance at home, they felt compelled to do everything possible to raise awareness, stand up against the voices of intolerance, and show the world that America cares about the greatest refugee crises since World War II.

As Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Corcoran notes, “They are promoting their rally as a ‘collective voice against intolerance,’” but the rally is really intended to influence Congress to increase the number of refugees resettled in the United States from the 70,000 that arrived in FY 2015 to more than 200,000 in FY 2017.

“[I]n  September Barack Hussein Obama will be leading a major effort at the United Nations to open our gates even wider for hundreds of thousands of third world migrants to be placed in your towns,” Corcoran points out.

Robert Carey, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (and until recently an executive with one of the largest VOLAGs, the International Rescue Committee) said on an August 9 press call the Obama administration wants to double the refugee resettlement budget in FY 2017 and resettle more than 200,000 “humanitarian arrivals” in the United States in the fiscal year that begins on October 1:

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests include $2.2 billion for ORR programs and that represents the cost of maintaining services for additional refugees and other entrance and unaccompanied children primarily from Central America. The President’s budget request would support a total of 213,000 humanitarian arrivals including 100,000 refugees in 2017. Once a refugee arrives in the US they are eligible to access the same benefits as American citizens who are here legally including temporary aide to newly families [sic], Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP.

As Breitbart News reported, Carey is only the most recent director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to participate in the revolving door between the federal funder of the VOLAGs who resettle refugees and the VOLAGs who benefit from that taxpayer largesse.

Lavinia Limon, the current head of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, andEskinder Negash, that organization’s vice president for Global Development, both servedpreviously as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in Democratic administrations.

As a recent poll found, most Americans oppose increasing the number of Syrian refugees resettled in the United States.

Historically, as Gallup reports, “Americans have a general reluctance to accept refugees into the U.S., even in response to situations that are clearly oppressive.” In light of the recent increase in Islamist terrorist attacks in the United States and around the world, that reluctance among most Americans has now developed into an attitude of outright resistance.

Despite that widespread opposition to refugee resettlement, the VOLAGs are seeking to keep the federal refugee resettlement gravy train rolling in their direction, at an even greater level, through the use of propaganda and community organizing events, as Ann Corcoran points out:

September is also the month when the Administration (Obama and Sec. of State Kerry) will make their final determination for the US Refugee Admissions Program and submit their plan for fiscal year 2017. They said last year that they were shooting for 100,000 refugees for FY17, but we expect the number to be much higher.

The buck stops with Speaker Paul Ryan!

And, frankly there is only one person who is now in the catbird seat to stop them this fall!—Speaker Paul Ryan. (I know your hearts are sinking, but that is the cold hard truth.) Only Congress can stop them by not granting the money needed to place hundreds of thousands of needy people, some from countries that hate us, in over 350 American towns.

Now here they go attempting to soften up Congress by rallying in Washington for refugees on August 28th!

George Soros has his fingerprints all over efforts to promote refugee resettlement through a number of organizations he funds. As Breitbart reported recently, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation “spends millions promoting Somalian migrants”:

Documents show that George Soros’ Open Society Foundations has spent 1.8 million dollars to improve the image of Somalians in Europe and to combat Islamophobia.

Newly leaked documents from the Open Society foundation by site DC Leaks show the organized web of funding that George Soros and Open Society have become infamous for. One particular report shows funding for an initiative to promote the image of Somalians in Europe who, according to the report are in the top ten most discriminated people on the continent. According to the foundations the real problem is the image of Somalians in the media and not the problems that have led to the creation of that image.

“Political and media coverage of Somalis was largely negative, focusing on piracy, terrorism, FGM, and abuse of the welfare system,” the report states. Somali men have garnered this image due to discrimination, according to the report. While piracy along the horn of Africa is well known, there have been many cases of Somalians being involved in sexual assaults on minors, and people trafficking.

Those leaked documents also reveal “a number of startling revelations about the work of the NGO when it comes to combating what they refer to as ‘xenophobic parties’ in countries around Europe”:

According to at least one document, the foundations has been calling for the censorship of language in the European parliament they term as hateful and have been actively working with various socialist members of the European parliament to train them on how to combat “xenophobic populism.”

That same strategy now appears to be deployed in the United States, where it will be on full display in the August 28 DCRally4Refugees.


Also see:

Listen to Brigitte Gabriel explain the dire situation and what you can do to help:

Just how radical has Hillary become on illegal immigration?

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, Aug. 19, 2016:

Many of us who follow politics every day are like frogs in slow boiling water who don’t realize the gradual yet inexorable change in political temperature. Many commentators are trying to suggest that a group of conservatives have departed from our traditions and have moved far to the right on immigration. The reality is just the opposite. The entire political landscape has shifted so far to the left that most contemporary Republicans are to the left of where prominent Democrats used to be on the issue of immigration just one generation ago — and that is when the problem was trivial compared to the enormity of the security, economic, and cultural issues we face today. To get a sense of how radical Hillary Clinton’s views have become over the years — and how tepid the GOP reaction to it has been — watch the following clip from none other than Hillary’s husband during the 1995 State of the Union Address:

Can we run the Bill Clinton of 1995 for the GOP nomination, please?

When do we ever hear even Republican politicians speak with this much clarity on immigration, let alone any issue? Clinton referenced the “Jordan Commission,” which was headed by a liberal Democrat and pushed an all-out war against illegal immigration. Oh, and it called for reductions in legal immigration. That was at a time when our immigration level was a fraction of what it is today. I think most of us would pine to go back to the “1995 problems.” It was that effort that led to the series of immigration laws passed by the GOP Congress in 1996 (back when eve moderate Republicans actually stood and fought for real big ideas). Unfortunately, all of those laws were ignored. Nonetheless, when it came to deportations, the Clinton administration still repatriated four times the number of illegal aliens that Obama has deported.

How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books?

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Harry Reid (D, Nev. (F, 2%) had made similar comments about mass migration and illegal immigration and promoted enforcement legislation, the likes of which we don’t see today from Republicans.

Fast-forward just 20 years and the wife of the former president who spoke so clearly about the unfairness and dangers of illegal immigration (in a pre-9/11 world) has openly tapped an illegal alien as a campaign operative. As the Washington Free Beacon reports, the illegal alien employed by Hillary to register Latino voters is tied to George Soros’s operation to campaign against America sovereignty.

Let’s put aside for a moment the extreme nature of holding such a political view — that America must have complete open borders. How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty vote for a woman who openly mocks our laws on the books? Even if one believes in open borders and desires to change our existing laws, they have no right to flaunt illegal aliens in broad daylight and tap them for campaign positions.

We have a very polarized nation and we disagree on politics. But there is no disagreement on the rule of law. Sure, there is a concept of unjust laws or faux laws “passed” by federal courts that, as our Founders explicitly said, have no force of law behind them when they step beyond their constitutionally enumerated powers. However, nobody disagrees that immigration laws are the bedrock of sovereignty for any nation-state, and in this country, that power lies exclusively with the United States Congress. One may disagree with those laws as a matter of policy, but has no right to question their legality. For Hillary to run for an office predicated upon the faithful execution of the laws and then openly violate the most bedrock laws of a sovereign nation — openly hiring illegal immigrants and calling for the right to vote against the sovereign citizen — is beneath contempt.

Watching Democrats openly flaunt illegal behavior and dismantle the most inviolable laws of a nation state is yet another demonstration of how this is no longer a liberal party. It is a party of de-civilization.


Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney, Aug. 18, 2016:

DANIEL HOROWITZ, senior editor at Conservative Review, author of “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges from Transforming America”:

Podcast : Play in new window | Download

  • Supplanting Western civilization through Muslim immigration
  • Support system in the West enabling radicalization
  • The latest on criminal justice reform

Also see: