Tucker Reacts: Trump Causes Firestorm with Remark About ‘Problems’ in Sweden

Fox News Insider, February 20, 2017:

Tucker Carlson reacted this morning after President Donald Trump mentioned the “problems” in Sweden caused by large numbers of refugees from the Middle East.

The president’s mention of Sweden, during his campaign rally Saturday in Florida, was immediately ridiculed, since there have been no terror attacks in Sweden.

It wasn’t immediately clear during the remarks what Trump was referencing with regard to Sweden.

Many news commentators bashed Trump after the rally and on Sunday shows, accusing him of trying to mislead people about a terror attack in Sweden.

Trump then tweeted yesterday that the remark was based on a “Tucker Carlson Tonight” segment that aired Friday night.

Horowitz accused Swedish officials of being in denial about the problems.

Carlson joined “Fox & Friends” to discuss the fallout, first noting that all U.S. presidents should be “precise” with their words so people know exactly what point they’re trying to make.

But he said the media is ignoring the real story, which is the “massive social cost” and political backlash in European nations as a result of accepting large numbers of refugees.

Carlson said nations like Sweden and France have tried “really hard” and spent a lot of money on integration efforts and it “hasn’t worked very well.”

“Good for Trump and good for anyone else who raises at least that question. Let’s have an honest conversation about how you bring tons of people in and make them fully vested in your society. If they can’t do it, how are we gonna do it?” he asked.

Watch the discussion above.

Why should Muslims Feel Entitled to Move to America?

American Thinker, by Matthew Voegtli, Feb.14, 2017:

Why should Americans feel obligated to open our borders for Muslims to move here en masse?  Foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S.  Constitutional rights.  As the Supreme Court has held, an unadmitted and nonresident alien “had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.” (Mandel, 408 U.S.  at 762; see Plasencia, 459 U.S.  at 32.)  Beyond this fact, the president has plenary power over foreign affairs and this includes, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry “would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.”  The president as commander-in-chief is given this power, not New York Times columnists, not wailing Democrats, not the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the many activists groups calling for massive increases in Muslim immigration.

Remarkably many supporters of enhanced vetting to protect Americans have gone into a protective crouch and have not articulated reasons why we should be very careful about admitting more and more Muslims into America.

But we should be concerned.

There are claims that not one Muslim from the seven nations named in Trump’s executive order has been implicated in terrorism.  The New York Times in a lead editorial stated that not one person from those nations has engaged in terrorism, despite a Somalian refugee going on a rampage at Ohio State University last year.   Seattle-based  District Court Judge James Robart asked a federal prosecutor how many citizens of those seven countries were arrested for terrorism since September 11.  “Let me tell you, the answer to that is none, as best as I can tell.”

Then he issued an injunction freezing Trump’s executive order.  More significantly, even the San Francisco appeals court that upheld that injunction turned a blind eye (justice is supposed to be blind but not this type of blind) to the fact that 72 persons from the seven mostly Muslim nations covered by Trump’s extreme vetting order have been convicted of terrorism — not arrested, not indicted but convicted.  Deroy Murdock of National Review provides a few thumbnail sketches of some of those immigrants who have terrorized or planned to terrorize Americans and is correct to conclude that Trump’s executive order is meant to protect us from real-life mayhem

Scott Johnson, one of the founders of Powerline, has one superb work in uncovering the terrorism epicenter that the Somalian community of his hometown of Minneapolis has become over the years.  Many  Syrian refugees (and many other refugees from other Muslim majority nations)  support ISIS, according to a poll by the Arab Center for Policy and Research Studies; they harbor anti-Semitic and anti-Western ideologies and are primed to turn those views into action,

What has also been pronounced is the media blackout and amnesia over the litany of Muslim terror attacks over the years in America.  Here is a sampling: the first World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, Boston Marathon massacre, San Bernardino, the Orlando nightclub massacre, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, the aforementioned Ohio State attack, and on and on and more to come (for a much longer list see, “A Complete List of Radical Islamic Terror Attacks on U.S.  Soil Under Obama”).  There have also been planned attacks that were not successfully completed, among them the Underwear Bomber and the plot to blow up Times Square.

Apologists are wont to say some of these attacks were done by U.S.  citizens.  That is true, but they are often the sons of Muslim immigrants, and members of the second generation of Muslim immigrants too often become alienated from America and radicalized by mosques in America or by online campaigns to stoke terrorism against America.  The conclusion can be made that but for their parents moving to America there would be fewer murdered Americans.

Terror groups have openly boasted of their efforts to slip terrorists into the stream of immigrants coming into America from Muslim nations.  James Comey, head of the FBI, and James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, warned that vetting procedures were inadequate to protect us from the threats of terrorists coming to America .

Sometimes the future is visible in the present, and this is one of those times, since we can see how the European experiment with open borders and welcoming of Muslim refugees has turned out for them: mass terror attacks that have become so routine that even James Taylor has given up trying to bring solace to the beleaguered and endangered Europeans.  Crime waves have followed refugee waves.  Too many Europeans have paid a price for the generosity they have shown to Muslims, who have reciprocated by upping their demands, truck attacks, nightclub attacks, stadium attacks, Louvre attacks, attacks on women, beheading of  priests, desecration of churches, torture of Jews, London subway and bus bombings, and beheading a British soldier.  Are there any safe zones for Europeans?

Is it any wonder most Europeans are opposed to further migration (a bar on further Muslim migration has wide majority support in Europe?  A leaked German Intelligence report stated:

“We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.  German security agencies are unable to deal with these imported security problems, and the resulting reactions from the German population.”

According to the Federal Labor Office, the educational level of newly arrived migrants in Germany is far lower than expected: only a quarter have a high school diploma, while three quarters have no vocational training at all.  Only 4% of new arrivals to Germany are highly qualified.

For now, the vast majority of migrants who entered Germany in 2015 and 2016 are wards of the German state.  German taxpayers payed around €21.7 billion ($23.4 billion) on aid for refugees and asylum seekers in 2016, and will pay a similar amount in 2017.

A Finance Ministry document revealed that the migrant crisis could end up costing German taxpayers €93.6 billion ($101 billion) between now and 2020.  About €25.7 billion would be for social spending, such as unemployment benefits and housing support.  About €5.7 billion would be destined for language courses and €4.6 billion for integrating refugees into the workforce.

Mass migration has also increased the demand for housing and has pushed up rental costs for ordinary Germans.  Some 350,000 new apartments are required each year to meet demand, but only 245,000 apartments were built in 2014, and another 248,000 in 2015, according to the Rheinische Post.

Meanwhile, migrants committed 208,344 crimes in 2015, according to a police report.  This figure represented an 80% increase over 2014 and worked out to around 570 crimes committed by migrants every day, or 23 crimes each hour, between January and December 2015.

Mass migration is fast-tracking the rise of Islam in Germany, as evidenced by the proliferation of no-go zones, Sharia courts, polygamy, child marriages and honor violence.  Mass migration has also been responsible for social chaos, including jihadist attacks, a migrant rape epidemic, a public health crisis, rising crime and a rush by German citizens to purchase weapons for self-defense — and even to abandon Germany altogether.

Rolling out a welcome mat for Muslim immigrants and purported refugees has wrought havoc in Europe.

Is this what we want in America?

President Trump’s executive order has been attacked on other specious grounds.  One of them is that it mars America’s image.  Yet, other nations sell residencies if migrants have enough money –and these nations include Canada and New Zealand.   Six of the seven nations of Trump’s list bar entrance into their countries based on nationality.  A number of Arab nations agree with Trump on the need for such an executive order.  Contrary to claims from activists, the executive order is not recruiting more terrorists.

One might ask where is the gratitude from Muslims around the world for what America has done for them: America liberated Kuwait and Iraq from the murderous Saddam Hussein regime, established no fly and protected zones for them in Bosnia and Iraq, toppled the murderous Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, provided untold billions of dollars in aid over the years to Muslims throughout the world and allowed over 1.6 million Muslims to settle in America since 9/11, when we were attacked by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Islamic Center of America, Dearborn, Michigan

Islamic Center of America, Dearborn, Michigan

What have we received in return? Oil embargos, oil price gouging, terrorism and mass murder.

Emma Lazarus’s poem on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty is not a law; nor is it a suicide note.  The promise to open our doors to the needy has been met over America’s history.  The poem was written for another age and another world.  Activists might ignore facts and manipulate emotions to achieve their goals, but America should not be fooled and let down its shield.  Concerns about safety is not a paranoid delusion but even if it were, sometimes it is true that only the paranoid survive.  And as Joseph Heller put it, just because a person is paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t after you

Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order

refugee-terrorismCenter for Immigration Studies, by Jessica Vaughan, February 11, 2017

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary published by Fox News is available here.

The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.

The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.

The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:

  • Somalia: 20
  • Yemen: 19
  • Iraq: 19
  • Syria: 7
  • Iran: 4
  • Libya: 2
  • Sudan: 1
  • Total: 72

According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.

At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.

These immigrant terrorists lived in at least 16 different states, with the largest number from the terror-associated countries living in New York (10), Minnesota (8), California (8), and Michigan (6). Ironically, Minnesota was one of the states suing to block Trump’s order to pause entries from the terror-associated countries, claiming it harmed the state. At least two of the terrorists were living in Washington, which joined with Minnesota in the lawsuit to block the order.

Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment. The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun.

Some opponents of the travel suspension have tried to claim that the Senate report was flawed because it included individuals who were not necessarily terrorists because they were convicted of crimes such as identity fraud and false statements. About a dozen individuals in the group from the seven terror-associated countries are in this category. Some are individuals who were arrested and convicted in the months following 9/11 for involvement in a fraudulent hazardous materials and commercial driver’s license scheme that was extremely worrisome to law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, although a direct link to the 9/11 plot was never claimed.

The information in this report was compiled by Senate staff from open sources, and certainly could have been found by the judges if they or their clerks had looked for it. Another example that should have come to mind is that of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked and wounded 11 people on the campus of Ohio State University in November 2016. Artan was a Somalian who arrived in 2007 as a refugee.

President Trump’s vetting order is clearly legal under the provisions of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says that the president can suspend the entry of any alien or group of aliens if he finds it to be detrimental to the national interest. He should not have to provide any more justification than was already presented in the order, but if judges demand more reasons, here are 72.

***

Also see:

On Boycotting Radical Islamic Nations

Gatestone Institute, by Nonie Darwish, January 31, 2017:

  • The interviewer seemed shocked to hear that I do not have any Arab or Muslim friends who are protesting President Trump’s ban, and that many immigrants of Islamic origin support the ban and are fed up and embarrassed by what jihadists are doing.
  • The lesson America needs to know is that the West is not doing Muslims a favor by constantly treating them as children who should be shielded from reality. They hungry for the truth: that their educational system and mosque preaching are full of incitement, are abhorrent, hate-filled and the foundation upon which violent jihad is built.
  • Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims.
  • Muslims need to look at themselves in the mirror and see the world from the point of view of their victims. Instead, the West is sacrificing its culture, values, laws, pride and even self-respect.
  • It might compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees but it is reckless compassion. Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?
  • Some “tough love” is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.

Early this morning an Arabic radio station in the Middle East called asking my opinion about President Trump’s ban on refugees and citizens of seven Muslim nations. The radio host, who sounded angry over the ban, was a Christian Arab. She was surprised to hear that I supported the ban and think that it should have taken place the day after 9/11.

She then asked me if I knew any Arab American activist who was against the ban because she wanted to interview someone against the ban. She seemed shocked to hear that I do not have any Arab or Muslim friends who are protesting the ban, and that many immigrants of Islamic and Middle East origin support the ban and are fed up and embarrassed by what jihadists are doing.

She said that all she sees on CNN and other channels are riots that portray almost all Americans supporting Muslims and against Trump. I am upset over the success of the leftist propaganda all over the Middle East. It brings back memories of the life of the hate indoctrination and misinformation I lived under for most of my life.

What would Muslim countries do to the West, I asked, if 19 American terrorists flew airplanes into Arab capitals and their government and military headquarters? What did she think Arabs would do if every week or so American terrorists would conduct synchronized killing sprees all over the Muslim world, gunning Muslims down, blowing them up with homemade pressure cookers, ramming into crowds with trucks? There was silence.

She then started calming down and said that of course she is against terrorism, “but”. I asked: “Do you see what jihad did to your Christian community in the Middle East?” She was silent for a minute, then it occurred to me that she might be afraid to continue the conversation because her bosses were probably Muslims.

I was sure she was going to hang up on me, but to my surprise she asked me to please hold. Then she was back, live from the studio, and started interviewing me and asked the same questions on air. I poured my heart out in Arabic to the Arab listeners.

The lesson here is that Arabs are hungry to hear the truth; this Arab station, instead of rejecting these ideas, ended up putting them on air. The lesson America needs to learn is that the West is not doing Muslims (especially the reformists) a favor by constantly treating them as children who should be shielded from reality.

Muslims need to know that the world does indeed have a justifiable and legitimate concern about Islam and actions done in the name of Islam by Muslims. Muslims need to look at themselves in the mirror and see the world from the point of view of their victims. Instead, the West is sacrificing its culture, values, laws, pride and even self-respect. Muslim culture needs a wake-up call telling them that, sooner or later, non-Muslim nations will close their doors to any kind of Muslim immigration if the jihad culture continues. That will also be a strong message to Muslims already in the West who still believe in jihad.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order restricting immigration, January 27, 2017. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

The Muslim people are hungry for the truth: that their educational system and mosque preaching are full of incitement, abhorrent, hate-filled and the foundation upon which violent jihad is built. The Islamic commandment to do jihad sacrifices Muslim men, women and children to kill and get killed.

As long as the West continues its appeasement of Islamic jihad, Islam will never reform and the West will lose. So far, the West has continued to extend a lifeline to the religion of Islam; a religion for which the number one enemy is the truth, and which struggles to suppress the truth.

It might be compassion that leads the West to take in millions of Muslim refugees, but it is reckless compassion. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia taking refugees temporarily until things settle down in Syria and Iraq? Do Westerners question the motivation of Islamic theocracies, as to why ultra-rich Arab nations are sending us their refugees but taking in none?

Who is really benefiting from the policy of appeasement, the acceptance of Sharia-stricken theocracies and their jihadist, hate-filled education? Some “tough love” is urgently needed if Muslims are to be motivated to change and reform.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values”

Stop Muslim Terror by Stopping Muslim Immigration

151207-farook-malik-mn-1320_c6dda40fc874aca3944397566b7a5acb-nbcnews-fp-1200-800Sultan Knish, by Daniel Greenfield, January 29, 2017:

Lone wolf terrorism is the biggest trend in Islamic terrorism. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism, it requires no cells stretching across countries the way that 9/11 did. The perpetrators don’t even need to enter the country under false pretenses the way that the World Trade Center bombers did.

In many cases, they are already citizens. Some were even born in their target country.

Classic counterterrorism is directed at organizations. It’s inadequate for stopping individual Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen who was able to murder 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando or closely related duos like the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston or the husband and wife team who carried out the San Bernardino terrorist attack which took the lives of 14 people.

Even the standard technique of planting informants into mosques, deeply opposed by the Islamic lobby in the United States, fails when individuals decide to act alone or only trust their wives or brothers to be in on the plot with them. If an individual Islamic terrorist fails to let his plans slip, either online or to an FBI informant, stopping him can be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible without a stroke of luck.

And Islamic terrorists only need to be lucky once. We have to be lucky every time.

Every absurd Islamic terror plot broken up by law enforcement, the type of thing dismissed by the media and ridiculed by commentators, launching rockets at planes, underwear bombs and blowing up trains, contained the seed of a horrific terrorist attack just like Orlando, Boston or Nice.

When you turn on the evening news and see a running death toll, it’s because one of those absurd and ridiculous terror plots actually succeeded. And it’s happening more and more often.

The reason is simple. Unlike classic Islamic terrorism which required organization and infrastructure, the new brand of Islamic terror only needs one thing… Muslims.

Lone wolf terrorism operates entirely off the existing Muslim population in a particular country. The bigger the Muslim population, the bigger the risk. Any Muslim or Muslims who have settled in a particular non-Muslim country can answer the call of Jihad at any given time without warning.

There is no way that the FBI or other law enforcement agencies could begin to monitor even a fraction of the Islamic settler population sympathetic to terror. The FBI alone has almost 1,000 active ISIS cases it was investigating last year in all 50 states. It does not have nearly the resources it needs to handle them.

As the Muslim settler population in the country increases, the number of cases will grow. No matter how much law enforcement expands the scope of its operations, it will not be able to keep up with the high natural birth rates of the Muslim settler population whose terrorists don’t need a fraction of the training or skills that trained law enforcement figures do. The more the Muslim population grows, the more terror attacks like Orlando, Boston and Nice will get past law enforcement.

Any technological or logistical solutions to this crisis on the law enforcement end will only be band aids.

The source of the problem is Islamic immigration. That is the only possible solution. The only way to reduce the growth of the lone wolf Islamic terrorism problem is to reduce or end Muslim migration.

crop_mass_358_606gIf this is how bad it is when Muslims are only 1% of the population, what happens when the Muslim settler population doubles and then doubles again? Accompanying these rising population numbers will be rising influence by the Islamic lobby. Islamic groups such as CAIR with a history of terror ties and opposition to counterterrorism will have even more power to stymie law enforcement investigations. The end result will be far more successful Muslim terrorist massacres taking place on a constant basis.

Muslim immigrants are already inherently privileged when it comes to their ability to enter this country ahead of far more peaceful and far more deserving groups. For example, the vast majority of Syrian refugees admitted to this country are the Muslims who perpetrated and are perpetuating their religious war in the region rather than their Christian and Yazidi victims who face slavery and genocide at their hands.

This Islamic immigration privilege must be withdrawn. Muslim immigration must at the very least be scaled back to a level that law enforcement can cope with. At best it must end entirely until the Muslim world manages to stabilize its way of life to the extent that it can peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims.

There will be endless arguments over what percentage of Muslims support terrorism, but our own experience of recent attacks shows that many of them came from attackers who overtly appeared to be “moderate” and “ordinary”. For every Islamist activist dressed in Salafist fashion and tweeting praise of ISIS, there is at least one, if not many more, whom you would pass on the street without a second look.

Before the Boston Marathon bombing, the Tsarnaevs did not seem like Jihadists. They would have been classed with the general category of “moderate” Muslims. And then they struck.

That is how it is.

The internet has decentralized terrorist training camps. Any Muslim can acquire the skills and equipment he needs to kill a few or a dozen or even a hundred if he chooses to follow his religion.

160612122351-orlando-nightclub-shooter-omar-mateen-photo-tapper-00000301-large-169Not every Muslim will shoot up a nightclub or bomb a marathon, but we have no foolproof way of telling them apart. And even many Muslims who would not shoot up an office party in San Bernardino will still sympathize with the perpetrators. And even those Muslims who don’t will often continue supporting the Muslim lobby of organizations like CAIR that stymie law enforcement investigations of Islamic terrorism.

Muslim immigration makes Muslim terrorism worse.

Once we understand this inconvenient truth, then everything else naturally flows from it. The type of terrorism that we are dealing now won’t be beaten by breaking up organizations or droning terrorist leaders in training camps in Yemen or Pakistan. The enemy is right here. He speaks our language. He walks down our streets. He looks at us with hate in his Halal heart and he plots to kill us.

He may pledge allegiance to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but he is part of the larger organization of Islam. It is this organization, more than any of its Jihadist factional subdivisions, that represents the true threat.

Lone wolf terrorism is a viral threat that is spread by Islamic migration. We can only end it by closing the door. As long as the door to the Muslim migrant stays open, we will live under the threat that our neighbor or co-worker will be the one to kill us tomorrow or the day after that.

Trump vs. ‘the Soft Islamic Conquest of the West’

018784035_30300American Thinker, by Selwyn Duke, January 30, 2017:

The irrational left, which means virtually all the left, is apoplectic over President Trump’s executive order halting immigration from terrorist-spawning countries. Its minions are complaining that the move is “un-American,” which in their world apparently involves playing Russian roulette with American lives.

The New York Times just ran a teary-eyed piece lamenting “immediate collateral damage imposed on people who, by all accounts, had no sinister intentions in trying to come to the United States,” as the paper put it. The fake news is right there — “by all accounts” — slipped in casually in the hope the reader will slide by it unthinkingly. In reality, there are many people, from intelligence experts to politicians to social commentators to Muslims themselves, warning that there’s no way to truly know these people’s “intentions.”

One of the most striking reports on this front — both because of its content and how the Fake News (mainstream) Media ignored it — was an October 2015 Glazov Gang interview with Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition now living as a refugee in Britain. While calling himself an “orthodox Muslim,” he nonetheless issued an eyebrow-raising warning:

Keep the Muslim migrants out of Europe.

What’s more, he insists that they must be returned to their native lands.

While Europe was the focus at the time (as the destination of most Mideast migrants), Zahran’s warnings absolutely apply to the US. And what he says is troubling: Many if not most of the migrants are not what they appear (video below).

First, we’d always been told the issue was Syrian refugees uprooted by their nation’s civil war. Yet Zahran stated that many of the Muslim newcomers aren’t even Syrian.

The proof is in the pudding, too. When we read stories about migrants committing crimes — rape, murder, a terrorist act or something else — the perpetrators generally are Afghani, Moroccan, Tunisian, Iraqi, Somali or some other nationality that doesn’t happen to be Syrian. This is just casually mentioned in the reportage’s “who” aspect, and the relevant question doesn’t occur to most readers.

What the heck are these non-Syrian migrants doing in the West when the “refugee” scheme was sold to Westerners with a “help the Syrians” message?

The next part of the con, states Zahran, is that “75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]” because the Syrians “in disaster areas cannot … leave.” But it gets worse. He also asserts that half the Syrian male migrants “have actually held weapons and fought in the Syrian war.”

Then there are the truly malevolent fakefugees. As Zahran put it, “I can authoritively [sic] confirm — I have photos, I have images, I have pictures, I have names of terrorists who actually are already in Europe posting their photos in Europe on Facebook.”

This warning has been echoed by other Muslim figures as well. Also in 2015, Lebanese Education Minister Elias Bou Saab warned that 20,000 jihadis likely lurk in his country’s refugee camps, and Syrian ambassador Riad Abbas claimedthat 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe had Islamic State (IS) ties.

How these miscreants could penetrate the West brings us to the third part of the con: Despite leftist claims to the contrary, there is no way to reliably vet the Muslim migrants.

First, nations such as Syria simply don’t have comprehensive, Western-style databases containing information on their citizens. Intelligence officials haveacknowledged this, as has the Greek government and even former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. As Investor’s Business Daily put it in 2015, “Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren’t even kept. Agents can’t vet somebody if they don’t have documentation and don’t even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.”

Moreover, what good would the data be, anyway? As NYC Syrian community leader Aarafat “Ralph” Succar pointed out in 2015 while warning of IS infiltration in the US, you can bribe Syrian public officials and get government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be. Said he, “You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” reported the New York Post.

As for the notion these migrants can be vetted, Succar has a simple response: “[A]re you out of your mind?”

Yet even if we could weed out the fakefugees, it wouldn’t matter because vetting informs only about what migrants are, not what they will become or what their children will be. This is relevant not only because radicalization often occurs in the West itself, but because studies show that younger generations of Muslims in the West are actually more jihadist-minded than their elders. “Islam is the problem,” as I recently wrote — the gift that keeps on giving.

And the calculation is simple: If one million Muslim migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of one percent are or will become terrorists, that’s 1,000 dangerous jihadists. Are you willing to bet, your life, that this estimate is liberal and not conservative?

Yet as dangerous as terrorists are, there’s a bigger picture here, a deeper con being perpetrated by the Arab world via the mass migrations. As Zahran warned, “I have to be honest; you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers [and] they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

Zahran called this process “the soft Islamic conquest of the West” and noted that what Muslims “couldn’t do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free — and even [is] paying for it.”

The last part of the migration con concerns why leftists “care” so much about fakefugees. Not only is there the ego-driven ideological imperative of preserving their multiculturalist dogma, but consider: The vast majority of U.S. Muslims now vote Democrat, with Obama having gotten 89 and 85 percent of their votes in, respectively, 2008 and 2012. In contrast, pious, church-going Christians favor Republicans by wide margins.

Now note that while Christians are 10 percent of Syria’s population and are being targeted for extermination by IS, only one half of one percent of the “Syrian” migrants admitted under Obama were Christian. Compassion? Does the Left really care about these migrants’ lives?

Or just their future votes?

Whatever the case, the treasonous — or, as some would say, “internationalist” — among the alt-left often speak about redistributing the wealth. They clearly don’t mind spreading the terrorism around, either. Why not? The West won’t long feel compelled to send soldiers to the Middle East if we bring enough of the Middle East to the West.

More Muslims have arrived in the US just since 9/11 than did so during our nation’s entire history leading up to it. This, the handiwork of the left, has already resulted in hundreds more Westerners dying in jihadist attacks. How much more blood do you liberals want on your hands?

3 Questions to Keep Muslim Terrorists Out of America

3_easy_questions_to_ask_muslim_terrorists_4_fpm

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, January 27, 2017:

The Nonimmigrant Visa application form filled out by the 9/11 hijackers asked, “Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?”

They checked the box that said, ‘No’ and they were in.

The current incarnation of the form asks the same perfunctory and generic question. An actual terrorist is as likely to check the box as he is to finger a rosary while eating a ham sandwich and singing Hava Nagila. But since 9/11, the terrorist threat has evolved from foreign cells penetrating this country to domestic Islamist terrorists emerging out of Muslim settlements already occupying this country.

Most Islamic terrorists that the FBI has been dealing with had no specific terror plans at the time that they entered this country. Some Islamic terrorists, like the Tsarnaev perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing, came here as children. Others, like Omar Mateen, the Pulse shooter, and Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contrived to be born in this country to foreign parents.

Immigration screening has to do more than just ask terrorists to check a box if they plan to fly planes into our skyscrapers. We must identify visitors and immigrants who are at a high risk of becoming terrorists in the first or second generation. The only way to do this is with a holistic strategy that examines the worldview of new immigrants and the Islamic communities they intend to be part of.

Instead of checking a perfunctory box, it is important to interrogate how a Muslim applicant views his religion and its interaction with the rest of the world. And to examine the mosque he plans to attend.

For example, attendees at the infamous Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia included Nidal Hasan, its former Imam was Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, and a number of key figures associated with the mosque were linked to Islamic terrorism. Any Muslim immigrants planning to attend the mosque could be considered at high risk for engaging in terrorism regardless of their stated views.

Our current screening methods are laughably crude.

The immigrant visa form asks about engaging in and funding terrorism. It does not however specify what a terrorist group is. Muslims define terrorism differently and do not consider many of the Islamic terror groups listed on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list to be terrorists.

It asks about membership in the “Communist or other totalitarian party” and participation in various Columbian terrorist and militant organizations.  Despite the thousands of people killed by Islamic terrorists in this country in the last few decades, it fails to ask anything about specific Islamist groups.

That should change.

Despite all the assurances about vetting, the forms don’t even bother to ask about membership in Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas or their parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what the Communist party was to subversive and terrorist groups during the Cold War.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian organization. Its motto is, “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” This credo reflects the objective of a theocratic Islamic State to be achieved through any means: including violence. Its members have perpetrated and aided Islamic terrorism here and around the world. These include Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat and the Brotherhood perpetrators of the genocide in Sudan.

Any Muslim immigrant who had ties to the Brotherhood has falsely answered the question and should be deported.  If he falsely answered this question on his naturalization application, he should be subject to denaturalization and deported. Any Muslim who has subsequently become involved with Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR, ISNA, the MSA and countless others, should be investigated for pre-existing links with the terror network and prevented from becoming a citizen of this country.

Communities where Muslim immigrants propose to settle should be tested for their extremism levels as defined by the preponderance of Muslim Brotherhood institutions. Muslim immigrants who seek out communities under the influence of Brotherhood institutions should be considered at a higher risk of engaging in terrorism either in the first or second generation without regard for their current views.

Our goal is not just to stop terror plots now. Our goal must be to stop terrorism a decade from now.

Our counterterrorism is reactive instead of proactive. Reactive counterterrorism is measured by the time we have to react. When a terrorist opens fire in a shopping mall, reaction time is measured in minutes or seconds. His original descent into Islamic terror plots may go on for months or years. But the closer we get to the source of the problem, the more lead time we have until we are no longer reactive, but proactive. Instead of rushing to stop the next attack, we can transform the entire battlefield.

That must be our objective.

Our biggest problem is that we aren’t asking the right questions. Asking a Muslim if he is a terrorist is the wrong question. Islamic terrorists don’t see themselves as terrorists. They view themselves as devout Muslims. That is how we must see them if we are to find them out and stop them before they strike.

The root cause of Islamic terrorism is the idea that Muslims are superior and non-Muslims are inferior. Exposing this conviction won’t be done with a terrorism check box. Many Muslims who go on to commit acts of terror in the name of Islamic Supremacism have no such plans when they enter the country. They do however believe that there is a primal struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is this belief that they eventually put into practice at some later date by actually engaging in Islamist violence.

Instead of asking them whether they are terrorists, we ought to ask them how they view their participation in American life in light of the Koranic verse that commands Muslims, “O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends. ”And whether they are willing to disavow the message of such terrorist verses of the Koran as, “Do not take friends from them unless they migrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn away (from Islam), seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”

If they are not willing to disavow calls for the murder of non-Muslims, such as, “I will cast terror into the hearts of non-believers. Therefore strike off their heads”, they present a serious terrorism risk.

Can we really afford to allow Muslim immigrants into the United States who believe that they ought to “fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion will all be for Allah”? What better predictor of terror risk could there be than those who believe that they must “kill the non-believers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them?” This is the origin of Islamic terrorism. It’s the acid test for every Muslim migrant.

It all comes down to three simple questions.

  1. Have you ever had any associations with the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its front groups?
  2. Will you commit to avoiding associations with Brotherhood mosques and other entities in this country? Are you aware that you may be deported if you do not?
  3. Do you disavow the following verses of the Koran calling for violence against non-Muslims?

Such simple questions are far more relevant than a terrorism check box because they address what terrorists actually believe, not what we believe about them. They will not stop an active terrorist, but asking them will help keep out the terrorists of tomorrow.

Muslim immigrants coming to America must make a choice. As must we. Both Muslims and non-Muslims must come to grips with the violence inherent in Islam if we are to break the cycle of Islamic terrorism.

Americans must act, or suffer Europe’s Islamic fate

WND, January 21, 2017:

The federal government is actively facilitating the colonization of the United States by radical Muslims. And if action is not taken soon, America may suffer the fate of Europe – “no go zones,” rape gangs and the growth of entire areas controlled by Shariah law.

Leo Hohmann, veteran WND reporter and the author of “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad,” sounded the warning in an interview on Carl Gallups’ radio show “Freedom Friday.”

Indeed, Hohmann said the purpose of his book is to warn the New World of the horrors unfolding in the Old.

“That’s kind of the theme of the book,” he said. “It’s really, really scary right now. American journalists are not covering the story. Most Americans aren’t very familiar with exactly what’s going on.

“Women in Germany are having to change their lifestyles, they’re having to dress differently, cover themselves up. There’s been mega-rapes in Germany, over 1,000 on New Year’s Eve last year alone. The same thing has been going on in the U.K., where they have covered up an ongoing story of 10 years in the making with Muslim rape gangs targeting young British schoolgirls. And the media, law enforcement, and the social welfare caretakers have all been complicit in covering this up. We’re seeing the beginnings of this already happening in the U.S.”

Gallups, a pastor and author of books such as “When the Lion Roars,” argued the mass influx of Muslims into the United States is actually part of a long-term plan by President Obama.

“In 2011, when the Arab Spring broke out … I predicted, based upon intelligence sources out of Israel that were telling me this way back then, that [Obama] was going to use this, stir up and blow up the Middle East,” Gallups charged.

“Terrorism is going to go through the roof and he’s going to create a refugee crisis and your shores are going to be flooded with Islamic refugees. I said that in 2011 and I was called a racist, and a bigot and a liar and an idiot and a conspiracy theorist by some of the detractors. But now not only has it happened, but it’s on steroids.”

Hohmann explained he first became interested in the Muslim refugee story after covering the “surge” at the border of Central American migrants two years ago. He quickly realized it wasn’t just illegal immigration that threatened America, but legal immigration.

“I had written a few stories about that, and before long I started getting some feedback and a little more feedback and readers started challenging me to not just look at this illegal immigration,” he recalled. “[Illegal immigration] is a problem, but maybe take your eyes off of that for a second and look at our legal immigration system. And that’s what I started to do and what I found when I started poking around in that area was just truly astounding.”

Hohmann outlined some of his shocking findings, reporting America gives out 1.3 million green cards per year to people all over the world. A huge number of these legal immigrants are Muslims.

“At least 130,000 [are Muslim], and that only includes the green cards, that’s only part of the pie. We also have the temporary visas with them coming in as students, on work permits, entrepreneurial visas, fiancé visas. As you’ll recall, Syed Farook, the San Bernardino killer who killed 14 people at an office Christmas party one year ago, he got his fiancé in from Saudi Arabia. She took her passport photo in a full burka. That didn’t send off any red flags to our wonderful screeners at the Homeland Security department. They just rubber stamped her visa and let her right in.

“So all told, with the permanent 130,000 green cards and the temporary visas, we’re bringing in 260,000 Muslims per year from countries in the Middle East, Asia, North Africa — countries that are Shariah compliant and are diametrically opposed to American values of freedom of speech, equal treatment of women.”

Hohmann predicted this population shift, if not reversed, will have dramatic effects on American social norms and culture.

“Go right down on the line of those ‘liberal’ values, even treatment of homosexuals – these people will have none of it if [Muslims] are a majority in our country or even anything close to it,” he warned.

Gallups bemoaned how someone can be called a racist and a bigot simply for loving “common sense, logic, reason and this nation.”

“The fact that the vast majority of the Muslims that are shipped into our nation, they truly don’t express any desire to assimilate,” he said. “In fact, most of their expressed desire is to basically change America through their local Muslim communities and Shariah law. They do despise our values.”

The pastor acknowledged there are some exceptions but claimed, “For the most part, these people hate us.”

Hohmann agreed and referenced polls in Europe that show huge percentages of ostensibly Western Muslims favor the implementation of Shariah law.

“We’re bringing people in in record numbers, but we’re not requiring them to assimilate,” said Hohmann. “And so we have large Muslim populations living in enclaves in large cities, but not only in large cities. Under Barack Obama we have been bringing them into medium-sized and even much smaller cities, places like Twin Falls, Idaho, and Stone Mountain, Georgia and Owatonna, Minnesota, for heaven’s sake!”

The reporter also pointed out the economic motivations behind the importation of this population.

“Wherever there seems to be a meat plant, by the way, seems to be a big draw like the one in Owatonna,” he said. “And then you’ve got the Chobani yogurt plant in Twin Falls, Idaho – 30 percent of that plant is Muslim refugees.”

In the end, Hohmann said “Stealth Invasion” reveals nothing less than a plan to demographically transform the United States, even as it endangers America’s national security. This even extends, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum, to importing Somalis to the United States even though vetting them is all but impossible.

“There is no good reason to be bringing 10,000 Somali refugees to this country still, 25 years after the civil war started there in Somalia,” he stated. “How long are we going to be expected to bring in Somalis from a war-torn country? And we tell people that we vet them – how can you vet people from Somalia, a country that degraded into complete civil war and has no real law and order going on? And yet the State Department under John Kerry and Barack Obama tells us over and over and over again that these are the most scrutinized segments of immigrants coming to the United States. It just doesn’t make any sense, and I don’t think anybody believes it.”

President Donald Trump could reverse the policies. But Hohmann warns the new commander-in-chief “has his hands full.”

“He’s already sort of backed off from halting all Muslim immigration to ‘extreme vetting’ of Muslims,” Hohmann said. “‘Extreme vetting’ won’t get it done, I’m going to tell you that up front.’”

Buy the book:

wb315-na_stealth-invasion_mn

European Immigration: Mainly Muslim, Mainly Male, Mainly Young

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, January 5, 2017:

  • n the wake of the attack in Nice, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day.
  • Or there could have been a wide public debate over whether, with so many radicalised Muslims already in France, it was a wise or foolish idea to continue to import large numbers of Muslims into this already simmering situation.
  • Merkel seems to hope that with this raising of a burka ban the German public will forgive or forget the fact that here is a political leader so devoid of foresight that she unilaterally chose to allow an extra 1-2% of the population to be added to her country in a single year, mainly Muslim, mainly male and mainly young.
  • The burka and burkini, like the headscarf, are only issues because millions of people have been allowed, unchecked, into Europe for years. The garment is merely the simplest issue at which to take aim. Far harder are the issues of immigration and integration. It is possible that Europe’s politicians cannot answer these questions, because any and all answers would point the finger at their own failings.
  • The European publics might get fed up with the distraction tactics of talking about garments and instead seek answers to the challenge we now face, as well as retribution at the polls for the politicians who brought us here.

2016 was a fine year for Islamist terrorism and an even finer year for Western political distraction. While Islamic terrorists repeatedly succeeded in carrying out mass-casualty terrorist attacks, as well as a constant run of smaller-scale strikes, the political leadership of the free world continued to try to divert their public.

The most striking example of the year came in the summer with the French debate over whether or not to ban the “burkini” from the beaches of France. The row erupted in the days after another 86 people were murdered in a jihadist terrorist assault — this time in Nice, France. With no one sure how to prevent access to vehicles or any idea how many French Muslims might want to follow suit, the French media and authorities chose to debate an item of beachwear. The carefully staged decision by an Australian Muslim woman to have herself filmed while wearing a burkini on a French beach ignited the row, which was eagerly seized upon by politicians.

At the local and national level, the decision to discuss the burkini allowed all the larger political issues behind Europe’s growing security problem to be ignored. In the wake of Nice, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day. Or there could have been a wide public debate over whether, with so many radicalised Muslims already in France, it was a wise or foolish idea to continue to import large numbers of Muslims into this already simmering situation.

As it was, neither of these debates did occur, and no meaningful political action was taken. Instead, the issue of the burkini sucked all the oxygen out of the debate, leaving no room to discuss anything more serious or longer term than beachwear.

In the wake of the July 14 attack in Nice, France, in which 86 people were murdered, there should have been a fulsome public discussion over what if anything can be done to ensure that people who have been in France for many years — in some cases their entire lives — are not indoctrinated to hate the country so much that they drive a truck through a crowded sea-front on Bastille Day. (Image source: France24 video screenshot)

Across the continent in 2016, it appeared that other politicians realised the enormous advantage of such distraction debates. For instance, in the Netherlands in November, the country’s MPs voted for a ban on wearing a burka in public places. Prime Minister Mark Rutte apparently found this an enormously convenient debate. Not only did it temporarily reduce some of the pressure that his government is feeling at the rise of Geert Wilders’s Freedom Party to the top of opinion polls, but it also distracted attention from the years of mass immigration and lax integration demands which have been a hallmark of the Dutch experience.

After importing hundreds of thousands of people whose beliefs the Dutch authorities rarely bothered to question, the public would be satisfied — the Rutte government hoped — if only the small number of Dutch Muslim women who wear the burka were prevented from doing so. The Netherlands will have to see whether its implementation of such a law works any better than it does in neighbouring France, where “white knights” routinely show up to pay the fines of women fined for violating the burka ban there.

The Rutte government was not the only one to adopt this cynical strategy. Its most cynical deployment of all came in December, with the announcement by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that she would ban the burka in Germany.

As with the Dutch government, Merkel clearly hoped that in throwing this tidbit to the German public she might head off the threat that the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), among others, now poses to her party in this year’s election. But the move also raises the question of just how stupid does Angela Merkel believe the German people to be? It would seem that Merkel hopes that with this burka ban the German public will forgive or forget that here is a political leader so devoid of foresight that she unilaterally chose to allow an extra 1-2% of the population to be added to her country in a single year, mainly Muslim, mainly male and mainly young.

This is a Chancellor who, even having previously admitted that Germany’s multicultural model had “failed,” revved immigration up to unprecedented and unsustainable levels. Now, like her counterparts across the continent, she must hope that the German public are satisfied by this burka morsel and that, as a result, they will return Merkel and her party to power so that they can repeat whichever of their mistakes they choose in the years ahead.

It is possible, of course, that the European publics are wiser than their leaders and that they will see through these cynical and distracting tactics. There are extremely good reasons to ban any garment which covers a person’s face and allows them to wander as an anonymous stranger in our societies. There are some — though fewer — reasons to ban wearing a burkini on a beach. Certainly the governments of France, the Netherlands and Germany are within their rights to instigate and enforce any and all such bans. Such moves, however, are but the smallest register imaginable of a problem that seems far beyond this generation of politicians.

The burka and burkini, like the headscarf, are only issues because millions of people have been allowed, unchecked, into Europe for years. The garment is merely the simplest issue at which to take aim. Far harder are the issues of immigration and integration. It is possible that Europe’s politicians cannot answer these questions because any and all answers would point the finger at their own failings. Or it is possible that they have no answers to the problems with which they have presented the continent. Whichever it is, they would do well to reflect that in 2017, the European publics might get fed up with the distraction tactics of talking about clothing and instead seek answers to the challenge we now face, as well as retribution at the polls for the politicians who brought us here.

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.

Connecting the Dots Between Boston, Columbus and Berlin

161228bostonmarathonbombersConservative Headquarters, by George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 12/28/16

After every Muslim terrorist attack the establishment media, and others who refuse to take the Koran at face value, seem astonished that a young Muslim “immigrant” or “refugee” would wreak death on innocent non-believers.

They always want to discount the attack as the work of a “lone wolf” or someone who was disaffected or mentally ill.

And they are never prepared to admit that had the authorities acted on the clear information at hand and not been blinded or hog-tied by political correctness the attack could have been stopped.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing that killed 3, and injured an estimated 264 others, the perpetrators, Chechen “refugee” brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, should have been on the authorities’ radar because both the FBI and the CIA had been alerted to Tamerlan Tsarnaev by no less an authority on Chechen Muslim terrorism than the Russian security services.

The Russians, who have been fighting the Chechen Muslims since the 19th Century, had separately asked both the FBI (at least twice: during March and November 2011) and the CIA (September 2011) to look carefully into Tamerlan Tsarnaev and provide more information about him back to Russia.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) even secretly recorded phone conversations between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (they vaguely and indirectly discussed jihad) and sent these to the FBI as evidence of possible extremist links within the family.

The March 2011, Russian Federal Security Service alert provided the FBI with information that Tamerlan and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva were “adherents of radical Islam and that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was preparing to travel to Russia to join unspecified ‘bandit underground groups’ in Dagestan and Chechnya.

A government report released in April of 2014 detailed the failures of federal law enforcement officials to recognize Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a potential source of terrorism in the years before the Boston Marathon bombing. The document—an unclassified summary report from the Inspectors General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security—called particular attention to an FBI interview of Tsarnaev in 2011 and the failure of a Boston agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force to follow up on an automated alert that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leaving the country for Dagestan.

Despite all of these revelations, the report concludes that “based on all of the information gathered during our coordinated review, we believe that the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC…followed procedures appropriately.”

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were allowed to carry out their deadly attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed them to.

In the case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the Ohio State Muslim terrorist who ran over and slashed 13 people who were hospitalized for injuries once again the signs that Artan was a potential terrorist were there.

According to Senator Chuck Grassley, while applying for entrance into the U.S. as a “refugee” from Somalia in 2013, Artan’s mother told immigration officials she feared persecution from al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group, and believed Abdul and his siblings would be recruited into the organization if they remained in Somalia, the Daily Caller reported.

That knowledge should have led USCIS officials to “conduct additional questioning to better understand ties to a group that the United States designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2008,” a letter Sen. Grassley sent to DHS said. But the additional questioning, which the Senator’s committee describes as “common practice” in those situations, never happened.

Artan’s mother also told government screeners that her husband had been kidnapped by al-Shabab.

All of these facts should have been red flags our friend Phil Haney, a former DHS screening officer, told WND’s Leo Hohmann.

Haney, a recently retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the bombshell book “See Something Say Nothing,” said it’s not all that rare that a case with obvious red flags gets no response when passed up the line from the original interviewer at DHS because, says Haney, concerns about certain refugee cases began to be ignored as soon as Obama took office.

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Abdul Razak Ali Artan was allowed to carry out his attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed him to.

Anis Amri, the main suspect in the Berlin Christmas market truck attack, was also on the radar as a potential terrorist before he entered Germany.

A Moroccan security official says that his country’s intelligence service warned Germany twice about the risk posed by Anis Amri, the radical Muslim who slaughtered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin earlier this month.

“Correspondence from the Moroccan security agencies had a clear warning about the Tunisian man’s desire to carry out a terrorist act,” an unnamed Moroccan official told the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah.

The UK’s Daily Mail has documented that Amri was under surveillance for months, arrested and freed three times, and not deported allegedly because of a clerical error.

According to team reporting by the Daily Mail, German security officials had Amri under close surveillance between March and September this year because he was suspected of dealing drugs and planning robberies to finance the purchase of assault rifles.

The Tunisian radical was known to be a supporter of Islamic State and to have received weapons training.  He also tried to recruit an accomplice for a terror plot – which the authorities knew about – but still remained at large.

Amri was also under investigation for planning a ‘serious act of violence against the state’ and counter-terrorism officials had exchanged information about him last month and after he was named as the suspect it emerged Amri spent four years in an Italian prison for acts of violence and vandalism inside a migrant center where he was being kept following his arrival in Europe, the Daily Mail reported.

Before he was killed in a gun battle with a heroic Italian police officer, it was revealed that Amri had used at least six different aliases under three different nationalities and photographs show how he had changed his appearance over his years of freely moving about Europe even as the signs he was a dangerous terrorist mounted.

The Daily Mail reported that a senior German politician blamed the atrocity on “institutional political correctness,” arguing that Amri would not have been free to act if police had enforced the law.

Hugh Theodore Bronson, the deputy leader of the German political party AfD, said that German deportation law was ignored because the authorities were afraid of offending Muslims, reports Karin Bredenkamp of Free West Media.

Anis Amri, who was being monitored by police, would have been deported long ago if it wasn’t for a liberal “ideological agenda,” Bronson told MailOnline. “The law as it stands is not being implemented,” he said. “If it was, 12 people would still be alive, 48 people would not be in hospital, and there would have been no attack on Monday.”

“We are being too lenient in our implementation of the law. You can call it political correctness, you can call it an ideological agenda, but it cost 12 people their lives.”

No translation needed for Mr. Bronson’s comments.

The German authorities say they have at least 7,000 active Muslim terror suspects at large in their country and they do not have the resources to track them. The FBI and American Department of Homeland Security say that there are too many people like Tsarnaev and Artan across America today for the FBI to track them all—leaving the vast majority of people who the FBI suspects might harbor terrorist aspirations to plan their attacks without government surveillance.

So why would we allow more potential Muslim terrorists into our country?

The dots or common thread that runs through all of these Muslim atrocities is that the perpetrators entered their target countries as “refugees,” took the Koranic directives to kill unbelievers at face value, and most importantly, were allowed to carry out their plans by failed security procedures based upon institutional political correctness.

Recognizing that Islam is the threat, and implementing threat-based security procedures devoid of political correctness or ideological agendas is the only way to stop these attacks from continuing in what Muslims now consider to be “the era of total confrontation” with the West.

9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogator: KSM’s Predictions ‘Are Coming to Pass’

694940094001_5257713161001_man-who-interrogated-911-mastermind-has-warning-for-us

Fox News Insider, December 21, 2016:

Dr. James Mitchell, the man who personally interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said the avowed terrorist foretold of the dangers that could arise through lax immigration policy.

“[He] was warning of this very kind of thing ten years ago,” Mitchell said, “[His] predictions are already coming to pass.”

Mitchell said Mohammed told him that America’s civil liberties and openness were “gifts from his god” and were the weaknesses and flaws necessary to carry out an infiltration of Sharia law throughout the West.

“Political correctness allows them to operate in our midst without being challenged,” he said,

“Like-minded Jihadi brothers would emigrate, wrap themselves in civil liberties for protection” and fund themselves through the welfare system, he said.

These trends, Mitchell said, could be reflected in terror attacks, like this week’s attack in Berlin.

He said the best way to hinder terrorists’ progress would be to “slow down immigration” from countries that support terrorism.

German Lesson: Islamist Enclaves Breed Jihadism

Police stand near the truck used in the deadly attack in Berlin, December 20, 2016. (Reuters photo: Hannibal Hanschke)

Police stand near the truck used in the deadly attack in Berlin, December 20, 2016. (Reuters photo: Hannibal Hanschke)

Islamist enclaves in European cities are a bigger problem than the infiltration of trained jihadists from the Middle East.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, December 22, 2016:

German investigators have named a Tunisian refugee, Anis Amri, as the jihadist whom they suspect carried out Tuesday’s mass-murder attack. Amri is believed to be the man who drove a truck through a Christmas festival in Berlin, killing twelve and wounding four dozen others in an atrocity reminiscent of the attack in July, when 86 people were killed at a Bastille Day celebration in Nice.

Notwithstanding that they arrested and held the wrong man for several hours, it turns out that German authorities have been well aware that Amri posed a danger. He is yet another of what my friend the terrorism analyst Patrick Poole has dubbed “known wolves” — Islamic terrorists who were already spotlighted by counterterrorism investigators as likely to strike.

Amri, who is variously reported to be 23 or 24, arrived in Germany in July 2015 as an asylum-seeker. He was able to remain because of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s suicidal open-door policy for refugees from the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. Prosecutors in Berlin attempted to deport Amri back in June, after learning three months earlier that he was planning “a serious act of violent subversion.” He is reportedly a follower of Abu Walaa, an Iraqi sharia-supremacist firebrand who was recently arrested on suspicion of being a top ISIS leader and recruiter in Germany.

His terrorist activities aside, Amri has also been involved in narcotics trafficking, theft, and the torching of a school. That last felony occurred in Italy, where the “refugee” was sentenced to five years in prison before being welcomed into Deutschland. All that baggage, and still the Germans allowed him to remain. Reportedly, officials felt they could not deport him because he did not have a passport and the Tunisian government would not acknowledge him (despite the fact that the Tunisian government had convicted him in absentia of a violent robbery). That might explain a brief delay in repatriating him; it does not explain a legal system that permits a suspect with a lengthy, violent criminal record to remain at liberty while he is suspected of plotting mass-murder attacks.

Tuesday’s atrocity highlights an aspect of the refugee crisis to which I have been trying to draw attention for over a year: The main threat posed by the West’s mass acceptance of immigrant populations from sharia cultures is not that some percentage of the migrants will be trained terrorists. It is that a much larger percentage of these populations is stubbornly resistant to assimilation. They are thus fortifying sharia enclaves throughout Europe. That is what fuels the jihad. It would be foolish to think it couldn’t happen here, too.

To be sure, the infiltration of trained terrorists is a huge problem; even a small percentage would compute to thousands of jihadists within the swarms of migrants. Alas, that is a secondary concern. The bigger threat is the enclaves.

These are not merely parallel societies in which the law and mores of the host countries are supplanted by Islamic law and Islamist mores. Even residents who are not jihadists tend to be jihadist sympathizers — or, at least, to be intimidated into keeping any objections to themselves. That turns these neighborhoods into safe havens for jihadist recruitment, training, fund-raising, and harboring. They enable the jihadists to plan attacks against the host country and then elude the authorities after the attacks.

In short, the jihad succeeds not just because of the jihadists, but primarily because of the swelling, assimilation-resistant communities. They are the incubators.

Recall the horrific November 2015 Paris attacks, in which 130 were killed. The atrocities spurred what was said to be a tireless transcontinental manhunt. When Salah Abdeslam, one of the main culprits, evaded capture for four months, it was assumed that he must have made his way to Syria, rejoining his ISIS confederates.

But in mid March, he was captured in Belgium, just a few paces from his family home in Brussels’s Molenbeek district. He had been moving with relative ease from safe-house to safe-house.

Belgians were not surprised to hear it. Molenbeek is a notorious Islamist enclave. As the Independent reported, the neighborhoods there are a “magnet for jihadists,” and the community, home to many Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, “has been connected to almost all of Belgium’s [several] terrorism-related incidents in recent years.”

Belgium does not admit that it has so-called no-go zones, where Islamists challenge the authority of the host country to govern. German officials similarly pretend the problem does not exist. But Gatestone Institute’s superb analyst Soeren Kern recently published a jaw-dropping report, “Inside Germany’s No-Go Zones,” part one of which focuses on North Rhine–Westphalia. It is Germany’s most populous state, and it just happens to be where Anis Amri lived — in housing set aside for asylum seekers.

Kern observes that the German press has identified more than 40 “problem areas” across the country. The newspaper Bild describes parts of Berlin, Hamburg, and elsewhere as “burgeoning ghettos, parallel societies and no-go areas.” The Rheinische Post reports that numerous parts of North Rhine–Westphalia fall into this category:

Aachen, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Bottrop, Dorsten, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Essen, Euskirchen, Gelsenkirchen-Süd, Gladbeck, Hagen, Hamm, Heinsberg, Herne, Iserlohn, Kleve, Cologne, Lippe, Lüdenscheid, Marl, Mettmann, Minden, Mönchengladbach, Münster, Neuss, Oberhausen, Recklinghausen, Remscheid, Rhein-Erft-Kreis, Rhein-Sieg-Kreis, Solingen, Unna, Witten and Wuppertal.

How do these communities operate in practice? Kern relates:

The president of the German Police Union, Rainer Wendt, told Spiegel Online years ago: “In Berlin or in the north of Duisburg there are neighborhoods where colleagues hardly dare to stop a car — because they know that they’ll be surrounded by 40 or 50 men.” These attacks amount to a “deliberate challenge to the authority of the state — attacks in which the perpetrators are expressing their contempt for our society.”

If we are lucky, Anis Amri will be apprehended before long, and before he can strike again. It is entirely possible, though, that he will remain on the lam for some time. Like Salah Abdeslam and other jihadists, he is not without places to go.

And that is the crux of our challenge here at home. It is not just a matter of weeding out the trained jihadists from among the tens of thousands of refugees the Obama administration has already admitted, and the 110,000 more refugees for whose admission in 2017 the president has paved the way. The real problem is the thousands of assimilation-resistant refugees who will gravitate to and reinforce Islamist communities. They could form the breeding grounds and sanctuaries for the jihadist

Christmas Market Massacre Proves Ignoring Muslim Warnings Will Get You Killed

berlin-truck-attackConservative Headquarters, by  George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 12/21/16

Hidden in the media coverage of the carnage at Berlin’s Weihnachtsmarkt (Christmas Market) was a hint or two that German intelligence had some previous indication that Christmas markets and other Christian holiday celebrations were potential targets for Muslim terrorists.

In actuality the warnings, both tactical and strategic, were not mere “indications”; they were clear for all who wished to heed them.

On November 22, 2016, the U.S. State Department issued a stark warning for tourists to Europe, advising them of “credible information” of an attack on Christmas markets this holiday season.

The UK Express reported the warning in an article headlined, “Europe’s Christmas markets at risk of ISIS terror attack, US warns tourists.” “Credible information indicates the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Da’esh), al-Qa’ida, and their affiliates continue to plan terrorist attacks in Europe, with a focus on the upcoming holiday season and associated events,” said the release.

“US citizens should exercise vigilance when attending large holiday events, visiting tourist sites, using public transportation, and frequenting places of worship, restaurants, hotels, etc. … Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds, when possible,” the warning concluded.

Even earlier this fall, on September 14, 2016, under the headline, “Germany preparing for Nice-style attack as report says ISIS could strike at ANY TIME,” the UK Express quoted a secret report from Germany’s intelligence services predicts that Islamic terrorists can strike at any time in an “unconventional” manner like the truck massacre in Nice.

These tactical warnings were largely ignored by the public and were apparently of little practical utility to the German authorities who it appears did not harden the approaches to the Berlin Christmas Market. Nor did they have the personnel on hand to apprehend the hijacker who killed the Polish truck driver and then plowed the truck loaded with steel straight through the tents and stalls of the market killing at least 12 visitors celebrating a Christian tradition dating back to the Late Middle Ages.

However, what’s even worse, is that of less utility to the German authorities were the clear strategic warnings given by the Muslim invaders twelve years ago in an interview with leading German magazine der Spiegel.

In 2005, in article titled, “What al‐Qaida Really Wants,” Yassin Musharbash interviewed Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein about his remarkable reporting on al‐Qaida’s inner circle and his book “al‐Zarqawi ‐ al‐Qaida’s Second Generation.”

Hussein told Musharbash, “I interviewed a whole range of al‐Qaida (AQ) members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” What he then describes are seven phases the terror network hoped would establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

I will focus on just the final phases of the plan, but you can read the entire article and review the seven phases of the Muslim conquest of the West through this link.

The Fifth Phase, between 2013 and 2016, was to be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, could be declared – and it was. The plan was that by this time, Western influence in the Islamic world would be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al‐Qaida hoped that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

As 2016 closes it is debatable how much of the Fifth Phase was accomplished. The Caliphate was declared and clearly American influence in the Islamic world has been much-weakened, but Israel remains strong.

However, it is certainly arguable that, thanks to Barack Obama, a new world order is emerging with Iran as the nuclear armed Middle Eastern hegemon, Russian influence ascendant and, in the face of an expansive and aggressive China, the United States in retreat from the Western Pacific.

Now here is the key point regarding the Berlin Christmas Market terrorist attack and the building tempo of Muslim terror; the Sixth Phase Hussein reported is that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.”

As soon as the caliphate has been declared Hussein reported the “Islamic army” it will create will instigate the conclusive “fight between the believers and the non‐believers” which was predicted by Osama bin Laden and is central to Muslim millennialism.

What does Phase Six look like?

Priests are murdered in their Churches, Muslims demand an end to Germany’s Oktoberfest, Christmas Markets and Christian symbols are attacked. Priests remove Nativity scenes to avoid offending Muslims, restaurants remove traditional pork dishes, Christians are ordered to “pray in silence” so as not to offend Muslim migrants and now in Germany, Christians are being forced to hide their Bibles due to death threats from migrant Muslims.

Knowing that Phase Six of the AQ plan for its war against the West was one of “total confrontation” why would Western leaders, such as Angela Merkel, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, invite millions of Muslim invaders into their country?

But they have.

And so, thanks in large measure to Angela Merkle, a Muslim army has successfully crossed the Mediterranean, European culture and nation-states are in full retreat, and Phase Six of the Muslim conquest of the West is well and successfully under way.

According to the AQ timeline in der Spiegel we are now in the first year of the period of “total confrontation,” and so far, the Islamist army is winning. It is time Western leaders, such as Angela Merkel, take the Muslim leadership at its word.

Post Script: And if you think it isn’t happening in America consider the increasing tempo of Muslim terrorist attacks, including bombings, mass murder and random stabbings and the cultural war being waged that has seen even the mention of Christmas banned from the public square through the demands of Muslim Brotherhood fronts and terrorist affiliated organizations.

Under Hillary Clinton Presidency, U.S. Muslim Population Would Exceed France’s by 2024

muslims-pray-at-white-house-evan-vucci-ap-photo-640x480-640x480Breitbart, by Julia Hahn, November 2, 2016:

If Hillary Clinton’s expansionist immigration policies were put into effect, the U.S. Muslim population could exceed France’s current Muslim population by the end of a President Clinton’s second term, according to data from Pew Research and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The Muslim population of France is reportedly 4.7 million and the current U.S. Muslim population is roughly 3.3 million, according to estimates from the Pew Research Center.

Based on the most recent DHS data available, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has indicated that if she were elected president, she would expand Muslim migration by admitting an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year.

Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as president. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her presidency, she could potentially resettle roughly 1.7 million Muslim migrants during her first two terms.

These projections suggest that after seven years of a Hillary Clinton presidency, the U.S. could have a Muslim population that is larger than France’s current Muslim population of 4.7 million.

These projections are rough estimates, and the population size could be impacted by additional various factors— including births, deaths, and conversions.

Hillary Clinton’s support for open borders is shared by Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Ryan has championed policies to expand Muslim migration into the United States. Last year, Ryan voted to increase Muslim migration and fund visas for nearly 300,000 (permanent and temporary) Muslim migrants in a single year.

While polling data shows that his constituents overwhelmingly back proposals to temporarily pause Muslim migration, Ryan has also repeatedly ruled out the possibility of making any cuts to Muslim migration— insisting that “that’s not who we are,” and that such a proposal is “not reflective of our principles.”

Neither Ryan nor Clinton have explained how importing hundreds of thousands of migrants that come from nations which may hold sentiments that are anti-women, anti-gay, anti-religious tolerance, and anti-America, benefits the United States or helps to protect our Western liberal values.

Many have warned if the U.S. continues at its current record pace of Muslim migration—or if pro-Islamic migration politicians, such as Ryan and Clinton, further increase Muslim migration—the U.S. risks following in Europe’s footsteps.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions has previously explained, “It’s an unpleasant, but unavoidable fact that bringing in large unassimilated flows of migrants from the Muslim world creates the conditions possible for radicalisation and extremism to take hold, just like they’re seeing in Europe.”

France’s struggle to curb the spread of Islamic extremism has been well documented. As Time has reported:

Some 1,800 people left France to join ISIS and other militant groups in Iraq and Syria as of May 2015, according to the Soufan Group, a security firm based in New York, citing estimates from the French authorities… Jihadist groups find fertile ground for recruitment in France and Belgium due to those states’ staunch secularism “coupled with a sense of marginalization among immigrant communities, especially those from North Africa,” according to the report from the Soufan Group.

Almost precisely one year ago, the Paris terror attacks killed 130 people and injured more than 360 others in what was the deadliest day of attacks on French soil since World War II. Last month, the Telegraph reported that “the majority of the ISIL extremist who carried out the November 13 Paris attacks entered Europe… [and] slipped through Hungary’s borders while posing as migrants.”

Similarly this summer, 84 people were killed and hundreds were injured in Nice when a Tunisian native mowed down civilians with a 19-ton truck as the civilians were watching a fireworks display to celebrate Bastille Day.

Multiple reports have also documented a rise in anti-Semitism throughout France, which has pushed French Jews to “flee” in record numbers.

As USA Today reported in September:

“The number of French Jews immigrating to Israel rose from 1,900 in 2011 to nearly 8,000 last year, said Jacques Canet, president of La Victoire, the great synagogue of Paris. He said the country’s 500,000 to 600,000 French Jews — the third largest Jewish population in the world — “feel threatened.”

“Increasingly, Jews in Paris, Marseilles, Toulouse, Sarcelles feel they can’t safely wear a kippah (yarmulke, or skull cap) outside their homes or send their children to public schools, where Muslim children bully Jewish children,” Canet said.

A poll by the French Institute of Public Opinion in January showed 43% of France’s Jewish Community are considering a move to Israel, and 51% said they have “been threatened” because they are Jewish.

Under current federal policy, Pew projects that the number of Muslims in America will outnumber Jews by 2040– however, as projections based on DHS data have suggested, under a President Hillary Clinton, that date could likely come much sooner.

NYT: Refugees Pose Overwhelming Challenge to Europe’s Police

capture-4-2

Overwhelmed by refugees about whom they know nothing, Euro police increasingly rely on American intelligence. Is there an alternative?

CounterJihad, October 25, 2016:

The New York Times has a story highlighting the problems facing European police agencies.  It turns on a particular case out of Germany, one in which a refugee turned terrorist without the European police having any idea.  Fortunately, American intelligence tipped them to the terrorist in question before he could stage the attack he was planning.  German attempts to arrest him failed, however, and he escaped back into the flood of Syrian refugees.  Only when other refugees turned him in were they able to capture him.

And then, before they could interrogate him for any intelligence, he hung himself.

The takeaway for the Times is that the Europeans are too reliant on American capacities.

[A] series of [attacks] in Germany, France and elsewhere has exposed the lack of knowledge about the backgrounds of many, if not most, of the newcomers and the potential for them to be radicals or to be radicalized after arriving in Europe.

On both fronts, the situation is creating a particular political tension in Germany. The National Security Agency’s activities are under fierce scrutiny in Germany by a seemingly never-ending special parliamentary committee.

“American agencies are Europe’s best counterterrorists,” said Peter Neumann, a terrorism expert at King’s College London.

Germany’s lawmakers have passed a new spy law that is intended to address some of these challenges.  They are not the first to do so.  In the wake of the Belgian attacks, Italy’s Prime Minister called for a more unified European response to terrorism.  One of the criticisms facing Europe’s response is that it lacks a central police agency like the FBI that can act directly on terror threats across national borders the way the FBI does across state borders.

On the other hand, Marc Tyrell at Small Wars Journal rightly points out that a higher-level bureaucracy is often necessarily blind to street-level indications of danger.  Likewise, the classification of information within major Federal agencies like the CIA and FBI often means that communication doesn’t flow downward to local police agencies either.  There is no guarantee that adding another level of protection will work, especially not if that level of protection is placed behind classification walls.

Likewise, there is a concern about focusing on the right set of dangers.  Spying resources are only helpful if they are properly targeted, but Europe has so far seemed inclined to focus its increased resources on its own citizens instead of the influx of refugees.  For example, Germany has engaged in police raids targeting those who express concern about the refugee influx.  In London, an expensive new cyber security unit — targeting online activity of citizens — will focus not on radical Islam but on “cyber hate speech.”

The scale of the crisis also poses challenges.  Belgian police correctly identified some of the Brussels bombers, but had to drop its inquiry into them because it could not spare the resources for that particular case.  German police are likewise facing a crime wave that is overwhelming their available resources.  Leaked reports indicate that German police only expect this refugee crime wave to worsen.

Even here in the United States, with its advanced security infrastructure, the task is beyond police resources.

[O]f these 1,000 or so suspected terrorists, the FBI only has the resources to thoroughly monitor a select few. The precise number of round-the-clock FBI surveillance teams is classified… but sources familiar with Bureau resources say that the number is “shockingly” low, only in the dozens. At one point last year, sources reported that the Bureau was watching 48 people intensely, a number that is towards the upper limit of the FBI’s regular surveillance resources.

That means that even of the 1,000 American citizens and residents that the government believes are most at-risk of executing a terror attacks—the top .0003 percent most radical threats among the nation’s 330,000,000 residents—only around 5 to 10 percent are under 24-hour watch.

The United States is far richer than most nations in Europe.  It has a government committed to building out the security state.  It has far fewer Muslims, both in raw numbers and as a percentage, and it has accepted only a small percentage of the refugees that Europe has done.  If the United States simply cannot keep up with the terror threat as it stands today, Europe cannot hope to do so.

And that is with the crisis as it stands.  The upcoming Russian-led offensive against Aleppo will bring a new wave of refugees.  The offensive against Mosul, meanwhile, is expected to produce at least a million more just by itself.  Some other solution than admitting floods of refugees, and then trying to police them, must be adopted.