Merkel At Emergency Press Conference: Germany Stands By Mass Migration Policy Despite Terror Attacks

TOBIAS SCHWARZ/AFP/Getty

TOBIAS SCHWARZ/AFP/Getty

Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, July 28, 2016:

After a week of Islamist attacks by migrants and ‘refugees’, the German Chancellor has admitted terrorists used her open door policy to bring in people to commit violence, but refused to reverse her approach.

Defending her decision to tear up EU asylum rules for Syrian migrants, she said she had “acted in line with my knowledge and conscience” and said Germany would “stick to our principles” and “give shelter to those who deserve it”.

The German Chancellor had rushed back from a holiday and was speaking at a press conference that had been hastily brought forward to address the carnage in her country.

She repeated her “We can do this!” catchphrase, which she first uttered at the same conference last year before welcoming 1.5 million mainly young, male, Middle Eastern migrants to Germany.

“As chancellor, I am responsible for, by far, most decisions. I always have to weigh up if a decision meets our values — which does not mean that there are no risks,” she said.

Adding: “The basic principle that Germany stands by [is that] its humanitarian responsibility is the right thing.”

She did, however, say that “we will have to redouble efforts to deport people” who commit crimes and pledged that weapons laws across Europe would be sharpened.

She also claimed that terrorists wanted Germany to take in fewer migrants, and said she would not bow to their wishes.

“The terrorists want to make us lose sight of what is important to us, break down our cohesion and sense of community as well as inhibiting our way of life, our openness and our willingness take in people who are in need,” she said.

Adding: “They see hatred and fear between cultures and they see hatred and fear between religions. We stand decisively against that.”

In the past ten days, Germany has been rocked by four violent attacks – three of which were committed by migrants, and two had links to Islamic State.

One Syrian “refugee” hacked a pregnant woman to death on the street. Another Syrian, who came from Bulgaria, blew himself up outside a music festival injuring 15, and a “refugee” attacked multiple people on a train just over a week ago.

Also see:

Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

5 Things to Learn from the Latest 3 Jihadist Attacks in Germany

Ansbach-terror-attack-germany-678x381

It is okay to wonder when the madness will end, but it is not okay to do nothing about it.

CounterJihad, by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi, July 28, 2016:

The past few days have been pretty rough for Germans, who witnessed a spate of three violent terrorist attacks over a short span of three days.

On July 22nd, David Ali Sonboly, a 18-year-old holding dual nationalities in both Germany and Iran, opened gunfire and killed nine people at a McDonald’s mall location in Munich, leaving nine dead and more than fifteen injured. Two days later, on July 23rd, a 21-year-old bearded Syrian refugee, who was known to authorities for previous acts of violence, stabbed and killed a pregnant Polish woman with a machete and injured two others in the southwestern German city of Reutlingen (and the human baby in her womb also died). That same night, a 27-year-old Syrian who was denied asylum by German authorities blew himself up outside of a music festival in Ansbach, injuring fifteen people. And these attacks only come about a week after a 17-year-old Afghani refugee, Muhammad Riyad—who we now know was incontrovertibly inspired by ISIS—went on a bloody knife rampage that left eighteen people injured on a train in Würzburg.

The following are some points to bear in mind regarding these recent events:

There is a trend of Muslims of foreign descent committing high-profile crimes in Germany. At least two of the above attacks (the Wurzburg and Ansbach attacks) were indisputably Islamist attacks that were inspired by ISIS. It is not yet clear whether the Syrian refugee responsible for the machete attack was an Islamist, nor is it is clear that the Iranian-German Munich shooter was; though it is not implausible that these two attackers also turn out to be Islamists.

1. There is a trend of false or misleading information being disseminated about recent high-profile Islamist-perpetrated attacks.

One is reminded of, for example, the Omar Mateen Orlando nightclub shootings, which left forty-nine people dead and about fifty people injured. Reports that Mateen was a closet homosexual were widely circulated; indeed, the mainstream (liberal) media flirted with the idea that he may have perpetrated the attack because he was a self-loathing closet homosexual. But the story later turned out to be false, with the FBI stating that, contrary to all the reports, there was no good evidence that he was a homosexual.[1]

Regarding the Munich shooting, it was initially reported on the authority of the German police that David Ali Sonboly did not have a connection with Islamist militants and may have been inspired by Anders Brevik (the far-right terrorist who, in 2011,  killed 77 people and injured more than 300 others in Oslo, Norway). However, recent reports specify that on Monday, Bavarian officials announced that the 18-year-old gunman had been in touch with the Afghan knife attacker over the smartphone application, “WhatsApp.” Also, the BBC apparently scrubbed “Ali” out of the name of the Munich attacker in its reporting.

Perhaps the relevant BBC authority behind this scrubbing believed that disclosing his name would precipitate unnecessary animus towards Muslim refugees.[2] Furthermore, in regards to the Ansbach bombing, the BBC published a headline that read “Syrian migrant killed in German Blast.” Although the headline is technically true, it seems to insufficiently credit the Syrian migrant with the attack. One would think a more apt title would have been something like “Syrian migrant injures fifteen (or many) people in German Blast,” with the active voice being used, not the passive.

2. European authorities may be suppressing some evidence of Islamist ties or motivations in these recent (and even future) attacks.

They have a motivation for doing so, and it is to reduce the amount of violent (and perhaps non-violent) backlash against Muslim refugees in Germany. Furthermore, we also have proof that German authorities did suppress evidence vis-a-vis the actions of Muslim refugees; leaks revealed that German police had greatly underreported the sexual harassment that took place in Cologne, Germany during the last New Year’s celebrations. So it is not implausible that they would choose to suppress the amount of evidence that they release to the public if such evidence points to Islamist motivations.

As three of the above mentioned attacks prove, some of the Muslim refugees seeking asylum are either Islamists or homicidal maniacs.

If, for example, the machete attacker with a previous history of violence turns out to have been a homicidal maniac and not an Islamist, this would be more evidence that the refugee vetting process is faulty, and cannot adequately  screen people with nefarious motives. After all, one would think that homicidal maniacs should be screened off. But in any case, we know that there are more Islamist refugees in Europe operating at the moment. Indeed, Angelika Merkel admitted that Islamist terrorists had been “smuggled” in with the massive influx of refugees. Europe has been infiltrated by Islamists.

3. These recent attacks show the crucial value of profiling.

It can no longer be denied that young and single male-Muslim refugees are at the greatest risk of committing such crimes than other members of the refugee population. Because of this, greater scrutiny should be applied to such refugees. This is a commonsensical position that one can only hope that European authorities are implementing. It is simply silly to give the same level of scrutiny to an elderly Jewish, Christian or Yazidi female refugee as to a young and single Muslim male refugee. Profiling needs to be done. Israel, e.g., profiles and its security forces are the most skilled at dealing with Islamic terrorism in the world. Profiling for high-risk groups would definitely decrease the probability of Islamist terrorist attacks on European soil.

German authorities are not very efficient at containing refugee violence. Why did German authorities not deport or keep under heavy scrutiny the Syrian Muslim migrant who perpetrated the machete attack? After all, he not only fits the profile outlined in the above point, but he has a history of known violence. This should have been a red flag for the German authorities. Commonsense legislation needs to be enacted here, if it is not already enacted—refugees who have been recently given asylum and who perform well-evidenced acts of violence should be quickly deported from Germany. This should be a rule all across Europe.

4. Guns, machetes, trucks, or knives are not the problem—it is the individuals who use them for nefarious purposes.

After all, Germany has one of the strictest gun laws in the world. But that did not stop some in the German legislature from proposing even stricter gun control legislation after the Munich shooting. Just like some American officials after the Orlando shooting, some German officials do not want to face the realities of the situation—and one of those realities—the primary reality—consists of radical Islam, a destructive ideology which disproportionately affects young Muslim males and which teaches the forceful subjugation of non-Muslims.

5. Although Merkel and her fellow multiculturalists in power are not personally responsible for these savage attacks, they do hold responsibility for opening the refugee floodgates.

Germany is clearly feeling the effects of its “open-door policy,” which has turned out to be a national security disaster. The refugee populations contain a significant amount of latent Islamist sentiment, sentiment that is fueling the anti-assimilation and violence that we are now witnessing across Germany and Europe. The multicultural enterprise has failed, and the evidence of this failure is all across Europe, in plain sight for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. But a sizable amount of Europeans have yet to acquire eyes to see and ears to hear, as they still want to continue the refugee flow, even if it is marginally stemmed. Such is the insanity of those who would welcome the very people in their homes who would, if given the power, be the first to exterminate their caretakers.  It is a frustrating and melancholic form of naïveté.

Germans are rightly getting tired of all the Islamic terrorist attacks on their soil. The spate of recent attacks has caused many to come out with the slogan “Merkel Must Go.” Regardless of whether she must go or not, as I mentioned in my article on the Islamist infiltration of Europe, there are some practical steps that Germany and other European countries can take in counteracting the jihadist threat. They bear repeating.

Europeans should severely limit the number of refugees to whom they grant asylum. They should aggressively pressure the refugee populations already residing in their territories to assimilate to their native Western cultures.

In addition, Europeans, especially European lawmakers, need to realize that not all cultures are created equal, and that the German culture is superior to an Islamic culture like that of Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, as suggested above, profiling of asylum seekers should be actively implemented. Non-Muslim refugees from places like Iraq and Syria should be given priority over Muslim refugees from these regions—this is for the simple probabilistic reason that a Muslim is more likely to pose a terrorist threat than a non-Muslim. In addition, refugees who are approved for European citizenship should first be granted probationary European citizenship for a certain period of time; if during that period of time they commit crimes, then their application for permanent citizenship should be revoked.

As I write this today images of an 86-year-old French Catholic priest in Normandy are plastered all over the news—he had just been brutally beheaded and filmed by two ISIS supporters, both of whom were known to authorities and who had previously tried to travel to Syria to join ISIS.

It is okay to wonder when the madness will end, but it is not okay to do nothing about it.

The very least one can do is to educate oneself about the threat of radical Islam and how Islamic law, the Sharia, is not compatible with Western Civilization. Remember that as the late great Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian pastor who was executed by the Nazis for refusing to bow to their ideology and actively working to bring about their fall, once said: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

So let us not remain silent, let us speak, and let us act.


[1] The narrative never made much sense from the beginning, as Mateen had been married to women twice.

[2] Note that ‘Sonboly’ still gives information about the attacker’s background, since Sonbol is a city in the Iranian province of Khurusan; but this would be lost on most of BBC’s readership.

Is Trump’s Muslim “Pause” Constitutional?

Getty Images

Getty Images

Turns out… probably, but a lot more than immigration hangs on the question.

CounterJihad, July 22, 2016:

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air has a piece considering the Trump proposal for a pause on immigration from Muslim countries pending some answers on how to not import jihad.  He concludes, drawing on another piece at Circa, that there is ample law and history to support such a move by a sitting President.

The list goes well beyond Carter. Reagan instituted five separate immigration bans, including the 1986 bar against Cubans coming into the states. And Congress has gone much, much further in the past, all with the blessing of the Supreme Court to set precedent. There was the Chinese Exclusion Act and the World War II ban on entry by Jews fleeing the Nazis. Nobody is pointing to those as particularly shining moments in the nation’s history, but in terms of the legal questions there is very little that either Congress or the President couldn’t do absent some drastic new precedent in the courts.

The status of the courts is of course one of the main issues at stake in this year’s election.  With the death of Justice Scalia, a prospective Clinton administration will have the power to install a 5-vote progressive majority on the Supreme Court.  Ms. Clinton has expressed her intention to use that power to create substantial changes to the constitutional order.  This is true especially in terms of revising the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Second Amendment, and in terms of limiting First Amendment freedoms by overturning the Citizens United decision.

She is also likely to want a Court that will find a dramatic new precedent limiting government authority to block immigration.  Since the publication of The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002, Democrats have formally argued what they had long believed:  that mass immigration from the third world would alter the American voting public enough to ensure a much more left-leaning electorate.  Restricting any future Congress’ or President’s power to limit immigration is very much in the interest of her party, as they believe that they will benefit from importing a ‘new American people,’ more inclined to favor their appeals on election day.

If Trump were to be elected instead, however, the existing vacancy on the Supreme Court would be filled in a different way.  Initially a Trump administration would face a divided court whose ideological balance was not different from the one that has existed for several years.  It would fall to Anthony Kennedy, as the Court’s swing vote, to determine whether or not to uphold existing law and precedent.  Over time, however, the new Republican administration might have the opportunity to replace several Supreme Court Justices.  That would create a more favorable environment for holding that Congress’ and the President’s immigration powers are settled law.

In any case, the matter is an important one, argues former Federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy.

Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical….

[I]t is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and — within the strictures of American law — culturally. For those Muslims, Islam is, in effect, merely a religion, and as such it deserves our Constitution’s protections. For other Muslims, however, Islam is a political program with a religious veneer. It does not merit the liberty protections our law accords to religion. It undermines our Constitution and threatens our security.

If it is true, as he argues, that there is no right to immigrate to the United States, then no one’s rights are being harmed by laws restricting immigration.  Getting the exact balance right should be a matter for deliberation by Congress and the President.  Nevertheless, it helps to start with the clear understanding that we allow immigration, or not, based onAmerica’s needs.  We have every right to limit immigration that does not serve those needs, and no duty — neither moral nor legal — to admit those who are not in favor of continuing the American project of limited, Constitutional government.

How Serious Is Sweden’s Fight against Islamic Terrorism and Extremism?

Gatestone Institute, by Nima Gholam Ali Pour, July 17, 2016

  • Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.
  • Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? As usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.
  • “As soon as these people… say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.” — Inspector Leif Fransson, Swedish border police.
  • Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

Like all other European countries, Sweden is trying to fight against jihadists and terrorists, but it often seems as if the key players in Sweden have no understanding of what the threats are or how to deal with them.

In 2014, for instance, the Swedish government decided to set up a post called the “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism.” But instead of appointing an expert as the national coordinator, the government appointed the former party leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin. Apart from Sahlin having a high school degree, she is mostly known for a corruption scandal. As a party leader of the Social Democrats, she lost the 2010 election, and as a minister in several Socialist governments, she has not managed to distinguish herself in any significant way. Göran Persson, who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006, described Mona Sahlin this way:

“People believe she has a greater political capacity than she has. What comes across her lips is not so remarkable. Her strength is not thinking, but to convey messages.”

With such a background, it was no surprise that she was ineffective as National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism. But the fact that she used her high government agency to help her friends came as a shock to the Swedish public. Sahlin had hired her former bodyguard for a position at her agency and signed a false certificate that he earned $14,000 dollars monthly, so that he could receive financing to purchase a $1.2-million-dollar home.

Sahlin also gave the man’s relative an internship, even though the application had been declined. Before Sahlin resigned in May 2016, she said, “I help many of my friends.”

Despite the fact that Sweden has a Ministry of Justice responsible for issues that would seem far more related to violent extremism, Sweden has, for some reason, placed the agency to combat violent extremism under the Ministry of Culture.

While the U.S sees the fight against Islamic extremism as a security issue, Sweden evidently believes that combating violent extremism should be placed in a ministry responsible for issues such as media, democracy, human rights and national minorities. With such a delegation of responsibility, the government seems either to be trying to hamper efforts to combat violent extremism, or it does not understand the nature of the threat.

The lack of understanding of violent extremism, combined with politicizing the problem, has been evident, for instance, in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city. After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the city councilor responsible for safety and security in Malmö, Andreas Schönström, said that European right-wing extremism is a bigger threat than violent Islamism. And on June 5, 2016, Jonas Hult, Malmö’s security manager, wrote: “The right-wing forces in Malmö are the biggest threat.”

With such statements, one would think that perhaps Malmö is a city filled with neo-Nazi gangs. Not so. Malmö is a city that usually ends up in the news because of Islamic anti-Semitism or extremist activists working to destroy Israel. There have been no reports of any neo-Nazi movements in Malmö in the recent past.

When supporters of Pegida (an anti-Islamic migration political movement in Europe) came to Malmö, they had to be protected by the police due to thousands of extremist activists and Muslims protesting the presence of Pegida. Of Malmö’s residents, 43.2% were either born abroad or their parents were.

Further, the Social Democrat politicians have held local municipal power in Malmö since 1919. To say that Malmö is somehow a place where right-wing extremism is a threat is simply not based on facts. Instead of seriously combating violent extremism, many in Sweden have chosen — possibly imagining it easier — to politicize the problem.

Sweden also has not yet reached the point where the authorities distance themselves from violent extremism. The association Kontrakultur (a cultural and social association in Malmö),receives about $37,000 annually from the municipal cultural committee of Malmö. On its website, Kontrakultur writes that it cooperates with an organization called Förbundet Allt åt alla (“The Association Everything for Everyone”). This organization, in turn, according to the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism, consists of violent extremist activists.

The idea that municipal funds should in no way go to organizations that cooperate with violent extremists is something not yet rooted in Sweden. In June 2016, for example, a 46-year-old Islamic State jihadi arrived in Malmö. He was taken into custody by the police for speedy deportation. But when he applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency took over the matter to examine his asylum application, and ordered the deportation stopped. Inspector Leif Fransson of the border police described the situation:

“As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.”

In August 2015, the Swedish government submitted a document to Parliament outlining the Swedish strategy against terrorism. Among other things, the document stated:

“It is important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism and terrorism.”

Under the headline “Gender Perspective” in a committee directive from the Swedish government on the mission of the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism you can observe:

“The violent extremist environments consist mainly of men, and in the extremist movements there are individuals who oppose gender equality and women’s rights. It is therefore important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism, and that norms that interact and contribute to the emergence of violent environments are effectively counteracted.”

Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? But as usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

Mona Sahlin, who was Sweden’s “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism,” until she resigned in May amid corruption allegations, is shown posing with Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2010. The Swedish government’s directives to her agency stressed that it is “important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism.” (Image source: Social Democratic Party)

There is no evidence that “gender perspective” is relevant or useful in the fight against extremism and terrorism, yet we see that the Swedish government, in several documents related to terrorism and extremism, evidently believes that “gender perspective” is what should be used in the fight against those threats. This gives just some idea of how strenuously Sweden wants to disregard the problem, or even ask experts for help.

One might argue that this is because Sweden has never been exposed to Islamic terrorism or that extremism is not something that concerns the nation. Sweden has, however, had experience in facing Islamic terrorism. On December 11, 2010, a jihadist blew himself up in central Stockholm. Taimour Abdulwahab did not manage to hurt anyone, but Sweden got a taste of Islamic terrorism and has every reason to want to defend itself against more of it.

Islamic extremism is, unfortunately, becoming more widespread, especially in Sweden’s major cities. Gothenburg, for example, has been having major problems with it. In November 2015, there were reports that 40% of the 300 Swedish jihadists in Syria and Iraq came from Gothenburg. The only country that has, per capita, more of its citizens as jihadists in Iraq and Syria than Sweden, is Belgium.

As facts accumulate, there is much information indicating that Sweden has huge problems dealing with Islamic extremism and jihadism. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo), in the beginning of 2015, published a press release using the words “historic challenge” to describe the threat from violent Islamism. Already in May 2015 the head of Säpo, Anders Thornberg,expressed doubts that the agency could handle the situation if the recruitment of jihadists in Sweden continued or increased.

Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

This general politicization, combined with the failure to prioritize the fight against terrorism and extremism, is the reason Sweden is, and continues to be, a magnet for extremists and terrorists. Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and that there are feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Jihadists also know that there are large gaps in the Swedish bureaucracy and legislation that can be exploited. These are the policies that have been created by Swedish politicians. One can therefore only question if Sweden seriously wants to fight the threats of terrorism and extremism.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is a member of the board of education in the Swedish city of Malmö and is engaged in several Swedish think tanks concerned with the Middle East. He is also editor for the social conservative website Situation Malmö. Gholam Ali Pour is the author of the Swedish book “Därför är mångkultur förtryck“(“Why multiculturalism is oppression”).

***

Published on Jul 13, 2016 by Gad Saad

We discuss a broad range of issues dealing with Sweden’s current reality, as shaped by stifling political correctness, pathological virtue signalling, and breathtakingly lax open border immigration policies.

Ingrid’s articles at the Gatestone Institute: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/aut…

 

Time for political elites to stand up to sharia

AP Photo | Francois Mori

AP Photo | Francois Mori

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 15, 016:

Our political class, which includes both parties, spent an entire month debating gun control and turning a blind eye to the combatants behind those guns and how we have willfully allowed them into our country and have promoted their Muslim Brotherhood lobbyists at the highest levels of government. Last night, in Nice, France, a Tunisian-Muslim immigrant murdered 84 people in a Jihad attack that mainly involved a truck. He also reportedly got out of the car, shouted “Allah Akbar,” and began shooting into the crowd with a firearm he took from the truck, which was loaded with grenades and firearms. France has stricter gun laws than even what Democrats [publicly] want implemented in our country, yet they are suffering even more at the hands of Islamic jihad. What will it take to end the willful blindness on the part of political elites?

The willful blindness of sharia-based Islam – the glue that binds together all jihadists – is endemic of both political parties. Here is the preamble of the “counter-terrorism” legislation Republicans wanted to pass before conservatives rebelled against the effort:

The preeminent terrorist threats to the United States are radical Islamist terrorist networks such as al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their allies and affiliate networks, as well as lone-wolf supporters and sympathizers in the United States and around the world.

 

This is beyond tone-deaf. It’s willful blindness. The Islamic State was created in 2013, long after the modern era of Islamic jihad. We are not at war with networks or tactics; there is a clash of civilization and it is rooted in Sharia-Islam and the dictates of the Hadith, as practiced by millions of Muslims and rooted in a number of nation-states from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and even the government we established in Afghanistan. It is that motivation that has inspired so many Muslims living in the West to either support jihad or, worse, actually pursue it.

Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group.

Western leaders have always sought to isolate and decompartmentalize the problem. The jihadists in the Caucuses were “Chechnyians,” the savages in Israel were “Palestinians.” The West sought to legitimize and validate their grievances as rooted in geographical political disputes. In fact, they were all rooted in Jihad as dictated by the Hadith. The West blamed Israel for suffering from suicide bombings and vehicular attacks for years. Tragically, we now see that those tactics have made their way to the West – tactics employed by the same enemy with the same ideology.

This willful blindness of focusing myopically on ISIS and Al Qaeda while downright promoting the Islamic supremacist ideology behind it affects our immigration, homeland security, and national security/military policies. For if we are unwilling to acknowledge the enemy and its threatening doctrine, we will pursue dyslexic policies in those three realms.

It is this willful blindness that has led CIA Director John Brennan to conclude this week that “Saudi Arabia is among our closest counterterrorism partners.”

It is this willful blindness that has allowed our military leadership to throw our soldiers into Islamic civil wars to fight one sharia-adherent group of Muslims on behalf of other sharia-adherent Muslims, while shunning true reformist leaders in places like Egypt and Libya who would actually fight Islamic supremacism.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed Islamic supremacist groups with ties to Hamas to become the leaders of American Muslims, obtain security clearances and meet with Congress 325 times in one year.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed countries like France to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East who subscribe to the underlying ideology shared by Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice terrorist. And it is this appalling willful blindness that has caused our political leaders to learn nothing from the mistakes of Europe and instead, follow blindly in their footsteps.

What paves the road for endless numbers of Muslims in the West who make the ultimate decision to engage in violent Jihad is the climate of civilization jihad that is rooted in the mosques, schools, and political organizations, mainly run by Muslim Brotherhood groups. The notion that we would allow more individuals into our country who subscribe to this ideology is maniacal and suicidal. There are certainly no constitutional mandates on prospectively bringing in any group of immigrants, and as I explore in two chapters of Stolen Sovereignty, our Founders and early political leaders up until just two generations ago all agreed to only admit those who completely shared our political values. This was the essence of Teddy Roosevelt’s message right before he passed away:

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . .We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

 

The guiding principle of our immigration policy was to only admit those who unquestionably adhered to our values system. Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group. When our early political leaders in both parties promoted policies that weeded out those immigrants who didn’t share our values, they were dealing with Europeans from Western Civilization. They could have never imagined an ideology that is the complete antithesis of constitutional republicanism being invited in and championed by the political elites on such a large scale. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the famed Nuremberg prosecutor, best encapsulated the incompatibility of Sharia with western civilization in a statement published in 1955:

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge — all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire — reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

 

In the irony of all ironies, this very statement from Justice Jackson has been purged from our counterterrorism training for federal law enforcement, at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood’s CVE agenda.

As it states in the Bible, the truth is not in the heaven or in a far off land; it “is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it [Deuteronomy 30:14].  We don’t need to conjure up unconstitutional or novel ideas or focus on trucks, guns, and tactics in order to secure this nation. We need to simply recognize the incontrovertible truth and employ basic common sense and stop self-immolating.

cr audio

Newt livechat on Nice

Minnesota ‘sharia law’ billboard causing a stir

Refugee Resettlement Watch, by Ann Corcoran July 13, 2016:

I suppose the question it asks could easily be answered in Minnesota!

That roving gang of Somali refugee youths in an upscale suburb of Minnesota two weeks ago told a homeowner that they could kidnap and rape her because Sharia law said they could.  Why aren’t we believing the believers?

“Do you know Shariah law?” one of the older men in robes yelled at Penskey.

[…]

“We can kidnap you and rape you!” the men shouted back at her.

Here is the billboad, see the story, here at Alpha News.

minn-billboard

It is a billboard contracted through the month of July by the Center for Security Policy.

I love these alternative ways of reaching people when the national media isn’t telling the public the truth!

Heck, have you seen any of these three recent stories on the national news—Idaho rape, Somali roving gangs, and now the Massachusetts Syrian alleged perv?

By the way, some people prefer spelling ‘sharia’ with an ‘h’ at the end, I don’t know if there is a correct spelling or whether you can spell it either way and be correct.

Must Watch: In 7 Minutes Learn How Islamic Demographics Are Changing the World

hijra2

Constitution, by Bethany Blankley, July 11, 2016:

By fertility rates alone, Islam is poised to conquer the world.

For every one child born in a Western country, eight are born in an Islamic one. But those numbers escalate when taking into account that Westerners aren’t having enough children to even maintain their population.

Because Westerners have not even maintained the minimum fertility rate needed to survive, their civilizations will face extinction simply because of numbers. Based on current demographics, it would take 100 years to be corrected.

But in a few short years nearly 50 percent of those born in Europe will be Islamic. By 2027, most Western countries will be Islamic– France will most likely be the first.  And, 40 percent of the Russian army will be Islamic.

Immigration and procreation is the most effective way for Islam to advance– it’s part of Hijrah.

As Muammar al-Gaddafi famously remarked:

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America from the perspective of an evangelical and former communications staffer. She was a communications strategist for four U.S. Senators, one U.S. Congressman, a former New York governor, and several non-profits. She earned her MA in Theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her BA in Political Science from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley facebook.com/BlankleyBethany/ & BethanyBlankley.com.

The Rape of Germany

AP_496697863300.sized-770x415xt

PJ MEDIA, BY MICHAEL WALSH, JULY 11, 2016:

Women of Germany (and Europe): you can thank Angela Merkel for this:

At first, there was complete silence from officials. As rumors spread on social media, police had nothing to say about allegations of mass sexual assaults and other crimes carried out on New Year’s Eve in the German city of Cologne. It was only days later that officials reported that hundreds of women were victims of assault in Cologne, Hamburg and other German cities.But numbers that are now emerging are likely to shock a country still coming to terms with what happened in Cologne more than half a year ago. According to a leaked police document, published by Germany’sSueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper and broadcasters NDR and WDR, the previous estimates have to be dramatically revised — upward.

Authorities now think that on New Year’s Eve, more than 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in various German cities, including more than 600 in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. More than 2,000 men were allegedly involved, and 120 suspects — about half of them foreign nationals who had only recently arrived in Germany — have been identified.

You can also thank, in no particular order, a “feminist” ascendancy that has marginalized traditional masculinity, a weak quasi-socialist culture that has not had to provide for its own defense since the end of World War II, a declining birth rate that has pushed chancellor Merkel (herself childless and thus with no personal stake in the future) to import a million Muslims in the idiotic hope that they would provide both Germany’s future work force (this from a culture that cannot build a functioning flush toilet) and its heavily taxed taxpayers to keep the social safety net in place (good luck with that).

Officials have linked the sexual assaults to the influx of refugees. “There is a connection between the emergence of this phenomenon and the rapid migration in 2015,” Holger Münch, president of the German Federal Crime Police Office, told Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Many suspects had originally come to Germany from North African countries rather than Syria, officials said. 

Germany’s Parliament passed a stricter sexual-assault law last week that will make it easier for courts to sentence those who facilitate or are involved in assaults. The new law will be based on the premise that “no means no,” meaning that sexual assault can be punished as rape if the offender ignores the “discernible contrary will” of the victim.

Naturally, the German Left is against it:

Halina Wawzyniak, a lawmaker from the Left Party, told The Washington Post last week that immigration issues and sexual-assault cases should not be linked, as refugees could end up facing a “double punishment” by being deported. “The debate used to be about ‘no means no’ — now all that is being talked about in social networks are foreigners again,” she said.

Why the Merkel government hasn’t fallen by now is a tribute to the passivity of the German people, which we and the Russians beat into them at the conclusion of the war. But in the coming confrontation with recrudescent Islam — whose goal really is world conquest, lest we forget — Germany is going to need to relocate its spine if it wants to survive with its national pride intact and its women unmolested, instead of taken as spoils of war in the Dar al-Harb.

The Rape Capital of Europe?

Tratado_de_Lisboa_13_12_2007_081You will be shocked to realize what this country’s politicians are doing to hide the connection between Islam and rape.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 6, 2016:

Europeans are facing a growing Muslim immigration crisis. This is not only causing the cash-strapped socialist governments of Europe to concern themselves with temporary housing and other basic necessities for immigrants, but also to counter the significant social problems caused by their influx. One such example is the prevalence of rape crimes committed against women by Muslim immigrants in Sweden, the country infamously recognized as “the rape capital of Europe.” Arutz Sheva reports on the horrendous state of affairs:

Sweden has the fastest growing population in Europe, due nearly totally to the influx of Arabs and Muslims from the Middle East.  At the same time, its crime rate has increased astronomically: In 1975, 421 rapes were reported to the police; in 2014, it was 6,620.

In comparison, Sweden’s neighbor Denmark only had 7.3 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2008, while Sweden had 53.2.

A more recent Arutz Sheva article reveals the Swedish government’s attempt to shroud the real issue:

“77.6 percent of the country’s rapists are identified as “foreigners” (and that’s significant because in Sweden, ‘foreigner’ is generally synonymous with ‘immigrant from Muslim country’), wrote conservative columnist Selwyn Duke. ‘And even this likely understates the issue, since the Swedish government — in an effort to obscure the problem — records second-generation Muslim perpetrators simply as ‘Swedes.’”

While Sweden grapples with this dramatic increase in rape caused in large part by Muslim men, Swedish Left Party politician named Barbro Sörman downplays the gravity of the situation by inferring that rape committed by Swedish men is more abhorrent than done by Muslim immigrants tweeting: “The Swedish men who rape do it despite the growing gender equality. They make an active choice. It’s worse imo [in my opinion].” Sörman elaborated about how Swedish men should be judged more severely because they are reared in a more gender equal culture than immigrants who are used to women having a relegated position in society. So much for accountability, apparently not sexually assaulting women is too much to ask for some groups. Worse yet, Arutz Sheva reports, “Conservative politicians who try to draw attention to this problem have been charged with hate crimes, while some Swedish rape victims are said to be reluctant to report sexual assaults to police because they fear it may ‘offend’ the perpetrators.”

Other instances of this culture of rape are rampant throughout Europe, most famously in the New Year’s Eve celebration in Cologne, Germany.  It will likely not subside in the foreseeable future. So are Europeans actually going to come to the aid of their women and children, or pander to the winds of political correctness? Europe is transforming into a proxy for the Islamic world to the detriment of native Europeans. Swedes and other Europeans need to not only fight for their survival but also basic European rights such as everyone’s “right to liberty and security of person.”

Europe must wake up soon.

**

Also see:

Does Islam Belong to Germany?

In a speech on October 22, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that she agreed with the statement of former German President Christian Wulff, that "Islam belongs to Germany."

In a speech on October 22, 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that she agreed with the statement of former German President Christian Wulff, that “Islam belongs to Germany.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, July 5, 2016

  • “Former German President Christian Wulff said: ‘Islam belongs to Germany.’ That is true. This is also my opinion.” — Chancellor Angela Merkel, January 12, 2015.
  • “Angela Merkel’s statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies.” — Thilo Sarrazin, renowned former central banker and a member of the Social Democrats, January 20, 2015.
  • “Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat.” — Alexander Gauland, AfD party leader for Brandenburg, April 17, 2016.
  • “An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with Sharia judges.” — AfD Manifesto.
  • “Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam.” — Henryk Broder, German journalist, May 16, 2016.

Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society.

In a similar poll conducted in January 2015, 37% of Germans said that Islam belongs to Germany, 15% more than now. The results indicate that German attitudes toward Islam are hardening after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than 1.1 million mostly Muslim migrants to enter Germany in 2015.

The poll has opened yet another chapter in the decade-long debate over the phrase, “Islam belongs to Germany.” The words were first uttered in September 2006 — at the time there were 3.5 million Muslims in Germany, compared to nearly six million today — by then Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.

Speaking ahead of the first-ever German-Islam Conference, the first institutionalized dialogue between representatives of the German government and of Muslims in Germany, Schäuble said: “Islam is a part of Germany and a part of Europe. Islam is a part of our present and a part of our future. Muslims are welcome in Germany.”

The phrase was repeated in October 2010 by Germany’s then president, Christian Wulff, during a keynote speech to mark the 20th anniversary of German reunification. Wulff proclaimed that “Islam belongs to Germany” because millions of Muslims now live there:

“Christianity doubtless belongs Germany. Judaism belongs unequivocally to Germany. This is our Judeo-Christian history. But now Islam also belongs to Germany (Der Islam gehört inzwischen auch zu Deutschland).”

Wulff then quoted the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who in his West-Eastern Diwan (West–östlicher Divan, 1819) wrote: “He who knows himself and others will understand: East and West are no longer separable.”

Since then, a debate has raged over the increasingly contentious question of Muslim immigration, integration and the role of Islam in German society. The University of Bonn launched a research project entitled, “How much Islam belongs to Germany?” The Konrad Adenauer Foundation published a paper: “Which Islam belongs to Germany?” According to the head of the Lutheran Church in Germany, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, only “Democratic Islam” belongs to Germany.

What follows is an abridged historical review of the phrase “Islam belongs to Germany.”

March 3, 2011. In his first press conference as German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich said that Islam does not belong to Germany: “To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history at any point.” He added that Muslim immigrants should respect the “Western Christian origin of our culture.” His comments set off a firestorm of criticism from the guardians of German multiculturalism.

March 4, 2011. Wolfgang Bosbach, of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU), defended Friedrich: “I like politicians who say what they think. Islam is part of the reality of Germany, but it is not part of German identity.”

March 5, 2011. Alexander Dobrindt, the General Secretary of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel’s CDU, said: “Of course there are Muslims in Germany. But Islam is not part of the German mainstream culture (Leitkultur).” CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said: “Islam has not shaped our society in the past and it does not do so today. Therefore, Islam does not belong to Germany.”

May 31, 2012. The new German President, Joachim Gauck, distanced himself from Wulff’s comments: “The reality is that many Muslims live in our country. I would have simply said that the Muslims who live here belong to Germany.” He added: “Where has Islam shaped Europe? Did Islam experience the Enlightenment, or even a Reformation?”

January 12, 2015. Chancellor Angela Merkel, during a meeting in Berlin with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, declared: “Former German President Christian Wulff said: ‘Islam belongs to Germany.’ That is true. This is also my opinion.” She stressed the need to “strengthen the dialogue between religions because there is still too much ignorance.”

January 13, 2015. Hans-Peter Friedrich, the former interior minister, challenged Merkel’s claim that Islam belongs to Germany:

“The Muslims who live in this country, who are committed to this country, belong to Germany, no question. There is nothing to deny and nothing to relativize. But I can see nowhere that Islam belongs to Germany. Islam is not a formative, constitutive element of the identity of our country.

“The issue revolves around the question of what is constitutive, of what makes the identity of this country. And the identity of this country, developed over centuries, is not Islam but a Christian culture, based on Christian and Jewish roots.

“Islam is not a defining element of the identity of this country. Anyone who travels through Germany can see this. They can see churches and paintings, they can listen to music that comes from many centuries of ecclesial roots; they can see art and architecture which are marked by Christianity.

“Whether Islam will be a defining element of Europe or Germany in centuries from now, only time will tell.”

January 20, 2015. Thilo Sarrazin, a renowned former German central banker and a member of the Social Democrats (SPD) who has been warning Germans for years about the consequences of mass migration, criticized Merkel:

“When the Chancellor says she is of the opinion that Islam is part of Europe’s tradition and culture, she is mistaken. When Angela Merkel says that Muslims should enjoy full citizenship in Germany and will be welcome if they integrate, her statement is true, although banal.”

He said that Islam “with all its radical, violent manifestations” arrived in Germany only in the last 40 years due to “unplanned and uncontrolled mass immigration into German society.” He added: “In addition, Angela Merkel’s statement obscures the real problem: A growing proportion of Muslim citizens in Europe does not share the Western system of values, does not want to culturally integrate and seals itself off in parallel societies.”

June 30, 2015. Merkel, speaking in Berlin after an Iftar, an evening meal that breaks the daily fast during Ramadan, declared: “It is indisputably obvious that Islam now belongs to Germany.”

September 21, 2015. Edmund Stoiber, the Honorary Chairman of Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) said: “I cannot accept the phrase, ‘Islam belongs to Germany.’ Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not. Islam is not a core element of German culture and has not shaped our intellectual history and tradition.”

April 17, 2016. Beatrix von Storch, the Deputy Chairperson of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), now the third-most popular political party in Germany, said: “Many Muslims belong to Germany, but Islam does not belong to Germany. Islam is at base a political ideology that is not compatible with the German Constitution.”

Alexander Gauland, the leader of the AfD in Brandenburg, elaborated: “Islam is not a religion like Catholicism or Protestantism. Intellectually, Islam is always linked to the overthrow of the state. Therefore, the Islamization of Germany poses a threat.”

May 1, 2016. The AfD adopted a manifesto calling for curbs to migration and restrictions on Islam. The document calls for a ban on minarets, Muslim calls to prayer and full-face veils:

“Islam does not belong to Germany. The AfD views the spread of Islam and the growing number of Muslims in Germany as a great danger for our country, our society and our system of values. An Islam that does not respect our legal system and even fights against it and claims to be the only valid religion is incompatible with our legal system and culture. Many Muslims live according to our laws and are integrated and are accepted as valued members of our society. However, the AfD wants to prevent the emergence of Islamic parallel societies with sharia judges. The AfD wants to prevent Muslims from radicalizing and turning to violent Salafism and religious terrorism.”

May 5, 2016. CDU parliamentary leader Volker Kauder said that Christian Wulff’s choice of words in 2010 were “well-intentioned but imprecise.” He said that while Muslims belong to Germany, Islam certainly does not: “Germany has not been historically or culturally shaped by Islam.” According to Kauder, Islam has many manifestations, “some of which we can never accept in Germany.” He added: “For us, religion is never above the state.” He said that religious freedom is not unlimited, but is restrained by the German Constitution.

May 16, 2016. The German journalist Henryk Broder wrote:

“Anyone who believes Islam belongs to Germany should not hesitate to go one step further and declare: Sharia law belongs to Germany. Without Sharia law, there is no authentic Islam. The ‘Euro-Islam’ desired by many is a chimera, as was ‘Euro-communism’ during the Cold War.

“This would significantly facilitate peaceful coexistence on a firm foundation. It would also be the end of all debates — about the equality of men and women, marriage for all, headscarves in the civil service, the separation of power in politics, separation of church and state, caricatures and satires. We would save a lot of time and could turn to the really relevant questions. For example: Was Jesus the first Muslim?”

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. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

Stop Importing Jihadists: Sharia Supremacists Have No Right to Enter the U.S.

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, June 29, 2016:

Donald Trump lit off a firestorm with his call for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. The deadly threat of Islamist terror and the migrant violence in Europe make a ban on Muslim immigration seem like a reasonable solution.

But we have Muslim allies, the King of Jordan for example, who would be affected by such an action. So if banning all Muslims is not the perfect solution, how can we deal with the ones who are a serious problem without alienating our allies?

The Center for Security Policy just released a white paper detailing how to do that entitled “Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.” It explains how existing laws can be used to stop allowing Muslims from coming to this country who do not share our American values. This does not mean all Muslims, but it is a significant number who believe the totalitarian Islamist code called Sharia should be placed above the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. citizens have rights. But clearly, there are no rights for non-citizens to visit or migrate to the United States. It is a privilege. We need to make sure that anyone coming here doesn’t believe their mission is to bring with them an antiquated and barbaric system to impose on us. We have the authority under current law to stop members of totalitarian ideologies from infiltrating and working to subvert our free system.

The problem is not Muslims per se; it is Islamic Supremacists who push the totalitarian ideology called Sharia. Unfortunately, this is a significant number of Muslims worldwide; a Pew International poll shows more than half of them believe Sharia should be the law of their land. Most also believe this law should apply to non-Muslims, as well. That could hardly be more un-American and we have every right to tell those folks “That’s not how we do things here.”

There are differing versions of Sharia, but they agree that the practice of all aspects of life is governed by the unassailable word of Allah and not one single bit of it may be questioned. That includes an ironclad prohibition on any man-made law superseding Sharia and a requirement for believers to actively work to impose it everywhere. This makes it impossible for a Sharia-adherent Muslim to swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution or any other country’s governing document. There can be no agreement to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Caesar must submit to Allah.

That single fact makes it prudent to restrict immigration by anyone who holds those beliefs. We have done this previously to stop totalitarian communists and fascists from infiltrating with a mind to undermine our society from within. That subversion is actually the very goal articulated by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood for its operations here in the United States: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house.”

It makes perfect sense to say to a group that wants to destroy us “from within” that “you are not welcome to come in.”

The dividing line we need to use for making policy is Sharia; the practice of Sharia is simply not compatible with life in the U.S. It is also the dividing line between Medieval Islam, with its abhorrent practices such as death for homosexuals; stoning for victims of rape; forced marriages and genital mutilation for girls; and Modern Islam, which could properly be called post-Sharia. The problem is Modern Islam does not truly exist yet. There are Muslims who do not practice or believe in the barbaric acts Sharia requires, but they are technically apostates, defectors of Islam, and the penalty for leaving is death.

The current state of play has members of the medieval form acting as the loudest voices of the “Muslim” community. Those who wish to practice a modern version do so at their own peril: they face shunning at best and death at worst. The medieval practitioners are aided in this effort by vast support; even the U.S. government has embraced them both abroad, by supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and here at home, in the form of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others.

Our U.S. government has a responsibility to safeguard this country and our way of life. That includes banning those who wish to destroy us from entering the United States. We must add Sharia to the list of totalitarian ideologies that trigger this prohibition. This will help all Americans including Modern Muslims who just want to live in peace in the land of the free.

Stop Importing Jihadists- A Policy Prescription

1949093373

Center for Security Policy, June 28, 2016:

The danger posed by the Global Jihad is immediate and deadly and our government should take all possible precautions to keep Americans safe. The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the Secure Freedom Strategy to Defeat the Global Jihad Movement to provide an approach that uses all aspects of U.S. power to stop this growing danger to our way of life. There are many facets to the threat, but one of the most compelling is the entry to this country of Sharia Supremacists who work to place their totalitarian ideology above any man-made law including the U.S. Constitution.

The existing immigration laws provide ample authority to ban sharia-adherent individuals under exclusions for totalitarian ideology and the President should provide guidance to the responsible agencies to do so. CSP has produced a white paper detailing the rationale and legal basis for this policy in the following white paper:

Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization

Stop Importing Jihadists- Executive Summary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                     27 June 2016      

NEW POLL FINDS AMERICANS WANT TO STOP IMPORTING JIHADISTS, CENTER OFFERS PLAN FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT SECURITY GOAL

Washington, D.C.: A new poll suggests that large majorities of Americans agree with the common sense proposition that we should stop importing jihadists. A murderous attack in Orlando heightened concern that we already have too many here.

A public opinion survey conducted this month by Opinion Savvy found that 71% of respondents support “identifying foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the United States.” Of those favoring such identification, 80% believe Sharia-supremacists should not be admitted into the country.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump put this issue on the political map last year by calling for a temporary pause in admissions of Muslims until a way can be found to determine whether they are potential terrorists. He cited troubling findings of a 2015 poll of U.S. Muslims conducted for the Center for Security Policy. Twenty-five percent of respondents believed “violence against Americans here in the United States could be justified as part of the global jihad” and fifty-one percent believed “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed by [Islam’s totalitarian] Sharia” code, rather than the Constitution.

In recent days, Mr. Trump has mused publicly about how to differentiate between would-be Muslim immigrants who pose a threat and those who do not. He has suggested applying his proposed restriction to all would-be immigrants from certain countries tied to terrorism.

One of Mr. Trump’s top advisors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, however, argues that defining test should instead be adherence to Sharia. On Fox News Sunday, Speaker Gingrich said: “I would apply a test for Sharia and a test for loyalty to ISIS rather than geographic test, because we’re fighting people all over the world who are dangerous to us. So, it’s hard to say which countries really are the Islamic terrorist countries.”

In an appearance last Thursday on Fox News, Center Executive Vice President Jim Hanson made a similar point:

It would be smart right now to pause immigration from jihadist controlled or influenced areas and take a look at whether or not letting anyone who is Sharia adherent Muslim— which is a totalitarian ideology not the religion — has any business coming in this country ever. We can ban totalitarian ideologues from entry with existing laws. And it’s probably  time to do that and stop bringing in more jihadists into the United States….

…The Sharia adherence is the important thing. It’s not all Muslims. There are plenty of Muslims willing to live in peace. But the ones who follow Sharia, which is a large number, it’s a third to half worldwide, have no way to follow the Constitution because they’re required to place that above any man-made law. So they’re not going assimilate. It’s not a question of their parents or internet or ISIS or anything. That’s what they taught and that is what they follow. That leads them to jihad and leads to dead bodies. We got to stop it.

The Center for Security Policy released today a white paper describing how such a filter could be applied and statutory changes that would facilitate its implementation:

“Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.”

It calls on presidential contenders, candidates for other offices, elected officials and citizens of this country to evaluate and implement this important paper’s recommendations.

For more information contact:                                                                                               

Alex Vanness

vanness@securefreedom.org

Judge Jeanine: ‘It’s Time to Take Our Country Back’

Fox News Insider, June 26, 2016:

On “Justice” last night, Judge Jeanine Pirro said the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union is just the beginning of a worldwide revolution, and the next stop is the U.S.

“The world is changing, and all you elite establishment, ruling class, condescending Washington bigwigs, who think you know better than ordinary Americans, are out,” Judge Jeanine said. “Start packing. Your days are numbered.”

She said that millions of American citizens who are unhappy with the direction of the country will catapult Donald Trump into the White House.

“It’s time to take the country back,” Judge Jeanine said.

“Every week, I speak to you in front of a backdrop. But it’s so much more than that. It’s the American flag. It represents the spilled blood and treasure of those who gave up everything for this great nation. It stands for freedom, equality and justice. And I’m damn proud of it.”

Watch Judge Jeanine’s opening statement above and read a full transcript below.


What happened in England is going to happen again. Next stop: the United States. Next president: Donald J. Trump.

What happened in the U.K. is just the beginning. The world is changing, and all you elite establishment, ruling class, condescending Washington bigwigs who think you know better than ordinary Americans are out. Start packing. Your days are numbered.

I told you this election was a revolution – but even I didn’t know how big it would be.

It’s worldwide. The headlines scream it. The working class who toil everyday to pay their rent and put food on their families’ tables are tired of being lectured by the fat cats in Washington and Brussels who preach what we need and when we need it. The Brits in a monumental upset made their voices heard this week voting to exit the European Union. You know the place with open borders being overrun by immigrants as they watch their economies falter. Similarly, Americans fed up with this “we are the world” dance will catapult Donald Trump to the White House.

News flash: we don’t want an internationalist country, world banks, globalization of our economy, a country with no border and no identity. You are not allowed to change the identity of this country. Americans want a nation-state, our own country with a history of freedom combined with responsibility. And yet our proud history – even our money – is being rewritten to accommodate a new world view.

We are so beaten down by political correctness that most of us are numb to the surrender of America.

And as for those naysayers. The ones who say Donald Trump just can’t win, listen up: those naysayers in England, got it all wrong. Prime Minister Cameron got it all wrong you know-the one who criticized Donald trump for his temporary ban on Muslims… And now he’s out. Obama too got it all wrong– jetting to England as if he were the world’s dictator-telling the Brits what’s good for them. And while we’re at it– Hillary Clinton got it wrong on just about everything, except her bank account.

When the president of the United States – a country founded on Judeo Christian ethics – tells Christians at a prayer breakfast no less, to get off their high horse, after Christians get their heads cut off-not even willing to mention Islamic extremism when the president of the united states allows hordes of immigrants who’s names– let alone backgrounds – we don’t even know – as ISIS proudly announces they are infiltrating these refugees… When states are not even notified who the federal government is sending to live in their neighborhoods, flying in unknowns from central America and the middle east en masse, who demand Sharia law in place of American law – then we are in the wilderness, folks.

And I don’t want to hear that Americans need to be more humble that we need more humility that my free speech needs to be tamped down so as not to offend another’s’ religion.

Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say something about another’s religion. Nowhere does our Constitution say we cannot say anything that offends someone. And by the way nowhere does it say I can’t have a gun. Do not use our Constitution against us while you use the same Constitution to shield those who violate our laws, showering them with all the rights and benefits but none of the responsibilities.

When our president’s first response to an American getting his head cut off is to show up in a golf cart and then keep on golfing-when he and his attorney generals response to Americans being killed by Muslim terrorists is to stand up for Muslims, then it’s time to take our country back

And don’t tell me that to not take these people in is not who we are. I know who we are.

My grandfather was part of the greatest generation that stormed the beach in Normandy. My dad saw the plume in Nagasaki. And later died because of it. No. Don’t you preach to me. I know who we are and I know who I am. I am an unapologetic nationalist. I am an unapologetic American.

And that Statue of Liberty – give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses

We never had a problem taking them in from the beginning. We are the most generous country in the world. I’ve sworn in newly naturalized citizens for years and have never been more proud of America. But they have to do it legally. They have to swear allegiance to America, follow our laws, and not be exempt from arrest because of their illegal status, as they are in sanctuary cities.

Even the Supreme Court had to stop the president, who attempted to ban the deportation of four million illegals and give them an automatic right to work here.

When a man running for president proudly carries with him the sword of socialism and when a woman running for president accepts monies from countries that kill gays and stone women to death for her family’s so called charity, when their holdings are invested in the Cayman Islands, and her husband is middle man to some of the world’s biggest deals, as they feather their nest at the expense of America, it’s time to take the country back.

No, I don’t believe in globalization. I don’t believe in this international mumbo jumbo. I don’t believe in self-denigration. I believe in our nation-state. I believe in borders. And I believe in the law, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that outlines the character of who we are. Every week, I speak to you in front of a backdrop. But it’s so much more than that. It’s the American flag. It represents the spilled blood and treasure of those who gave up everything for this great nation. It stands for freedom, equality and justice. And I’m damn proud of it.

o-AMERICAN-FLAG-facebook

Shock Poll: Most U.S. Voters Want Immigrants Screened, Barred for Supporting Sharia Law

shariah-law-picture1Seventy-eight percent believe “the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, June 25, 2016:

More than 7 in 10 registered American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for belief in Sharia law, a totalitarian system that calls for executing gays, adulterers and apostates, among other human-rights abuses, a new national poll finds.

And of those respondents, more than 80% say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the U.S.

The findings, part of a nationwide survey of voters conducted after the June 12 Islamic terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, indicate widespread support for presumptive GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to screen and restrict admission of foreign nationals from hostile Muslim countries based on “radical beliefs.”

“We have to screen applicants to know whether they are affiliated with or (are) supporting radical groups and beliefs,” Trump said after the Orlando massacre, adding that suspending immigration for those who “support oppressive Sharia law” may be necessary.

The survey, conducted June 19-20 by Opinion Savvy, an Atlanta-based polling firm, defined Sharia as “laws based on Islamic texts and judicial decisions (and) enforced by governments through the use of courts, law enforcement and citizen involvement.” It cited Saudi Arabia and Iran as governments prescribing Sharia “penalties including death for activities such as adultery or any act of homosexuality.”

As a result, 71% of respondents say they support ID’ing foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the U.S. Of those who support identification, 80% think that those ID’d should not be admitted into the U.S.

In other words, when voters understand what shariah is, the vast majority want to know if foreigners are Sharia-adherent, and then 80% of those people want a method for keeping them out of the U.S.

Additionally, American voters demanded that all immigrants accept the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land. Seventy-eight percent believe “the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country.”

The scientific poll of 803 registered voters, which has a +/-3.5% margin of error, was weighted toward females and Democrats.

Security experts say the results are a devastating indictment of the Washington establishment’s national security and immigration policies.

Both President Obama and Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton want to boost immigration from Muslim nations, including Syria and other ISIS hotspots; while the GOP leadership in Congress opposes Trump’s moratorium on Muslim immigrants.

“This poll illustrates the native common sense of the American people. By substantial majorities, they see through official efforts to mislead them about the roots of the danger we increasingly face here at home, as well as overseas — namely, Sharia-supremacism and the jihad it requires Muslims adherents to perform against the rest of us,” said Frank Gaffney, president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy and a former senior Reagan defense official.

“And they expect the government, instead, to protect them against this real, obvious and present danger,” he added.

In a separate 2013 poll, Pew Research Center found that vast majorities of Muslims living abroad “clearly support” brutal forms of punishment under Sharia law, including: stoning women accused of adultery, amputating the hands of thieves, publicly flogging people who “insult” Islam, and decapitating those who leave the Islamic faith.

According to Pew, “Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%)” — two nations viewed as relatively moderate in the Muslim world.

Foreign Muslims said they favor making the harsh Islamic legal code — the same one implemented by Saudi Arabia and Iran — the “law of the land” for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, the poll found. And they said they prefer appointing “religious judges” to enforce it.

Overwhelmingly, Muslims abroad condemn homosexuality while supporting polygamy. Shockingly large pluralities even favor “honor-killing” daughters who engage in premarital sex.

Most disturbing: Solid majorities in Egypt, Lebanon and several other Muslim nations agree that carrying out suicide bombings against non-Muslims “can be justified,” according to another Pew survey of Muslim attitudes on terrorism conducted more recently.

Gorka on Brexit: ‘Last Nail in Coffin Was EU’s Unfettered Immigration Policies’

Logo_brexit_new_size2

Fox News Insider, June 24, 2016:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, terrorism expert and author of “Defeating Jihad,” said today on Fox Business that the historic Brexit is an “assertion of sovereignty” by U.K. voters and a rejection of “utopian” globalism.

He told Trish Regan that it’s “common sense, not xenophobia” to be concerned about massive influxes of Middle Eastern refugees into European nations, especially after the attacks in Paris and Brussels.

Gorka explained that ISIS terrorists infiltrated Brussels using false Syrian passports and arrived as refugees.

“The director of the FBI has stated in front of Congress that there is no credible way to vet refugees,” he pointed out, noting that ISIS has said in its own English-language publications that it wants to exploit refugee flows.

Gorka said that many Europeans want to see clear national borders and “security control based on our national interests.”

“The last nail in the coffin in the EU from the point of view of the UK was this unfettered immigration into the continent,” said Gorka.

He said that the Brexit is “tied at the hip with the Donald Trump effect” in the U.S., and the question now is whether Trump can capitalize on that sentiment.