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

TOBIAS SCHWARZ/AFP/Getty

TOBIAS SCHWARZ/AFP/Getty

Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, July 28, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

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

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

Ansbach-terror-attack-germany-678x381

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Kassam Warns Open Borders Crowd Over Murderous Migrants: ‘You Can’t Be Social Justice Warriors If You’re Dead’

Rachel Megawhat/Breitbart London

Rachel Megawhat/Breitbart London

Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, July 26, 2016:

In the wake of the seemingly endless terror attacks by migrants and Muslims in France and Germany, Breitbart London Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has slammed open border activists.

Mr. Kassam confirmed he has “exactly” been warning that “following the mistakes of Europe will result in an American catastrophe and people will die” when presenter Sean Hannity asked him about his stance on his radio show.

“That is what I said about what’s happened in Germany, and we warned about it last year; we warned about it in Belgium; we’ve warned about it in France, and it is coming to fruition,” he said.

“Let me tell you something: it’s very hard to fight for social justice if you’re dead,” Mr. Kassam added, slamming powerful liberal open borders activists such as George Soros who encouraged the “migrant crisis” from the Middle East.

“And the most galling element of it,” he continued, “is that we have the BBC, and the New York Times, and Sky News, and all of these other guys who are basically saying: ‘well, a backpack killed these people, a machete killed them’.

“No. These are Syrian migrants who have faked being refugees. Some of them have been turned down in terms of asylum status, and they happen to have bomb-making knowledge and explosives at the same time?

“I want to know how these people got into the country and how they weren’t screened out, when their asylum application failed, and immediately deported,” he said, asking: “Why was this man still in the country?”

Some shocking allegations were also made on the show, pertaining to the possible Islamist infiltration of U.S. authorities.

“I agree with [Richard Higgins], that there is an NGO presence that is deeply entrenched in the U.S. establishment,” said Mr. Kassam after Mr. Higgins claimed that America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and part of its foreign policy are influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Higgins is a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programmes at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section, and was appearing alongside Mr. Kassam on the show.

Mr. Hannity had asked why President Obama is insisting 10,000 “refugees” from the Middle East are brought immediately to America, and why Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton advocates increasing numbers by “500 per cent”.

“Why are they so willing to gamble with the lives of Americans considering this has now happened at least a dozen times?” he asked.

“I think that they’re so keen to have them coming in here because their Muslim Brotherhood advisers are telling them that is best for the West,” said Mr. Higgins.

“We see Muslim Brotherhood influence through NGO organisations as well as affiliated with United Nations elements on the ground in Syria [and] on the front end of the vetting process in Syria – which is why you see 99 per cent of the people coming out are actually Muslims, not the Christians, not the ones being most persecuted,” he said.

“They’re on the back end here in the United States, coordinating their reception… once they arrive both in Europe and then here in the United States,” he added.

Fourth DEADLY Jihad Attack in Germany in a Week

merkel-migrationBy Pamela Geller on July 25, 2016:

This was the fourth violent attack in Germany in the past week. Ansbach is home to a whole lot of American families whose US Army soldiers are stationed at Ansbach, Katterbach, Oberreichenbach et al.?  The jihad bomber’s backpack filled with explosives. One dead and dozens injured.

2500 were attending the music festival the Muslim terrorist had originally targeted. Fortunately, the jihadi was stopped at entrance.

Bavarian Interior Minister Herrmann said the Ansbach bomber pledged allegiance to ISIS leader al-Baghdadi in video found on his phone.

If Obama succeeds with his Muslim immigration plot, we can expect the same bloodshed and murder here.

Islamic attacks in Germany this past week:

Munich shooter SHOUTED “ALLAHU AKBAR” TARGETED, EXECUTED CHILDREN in Munich McDonald’s before rampaging through mall killing 10, police now hunting three

Knife Jihad: MACHETE WIELDING Muslim “refugee” KILLS woman, injuring two others in Reutlingen, Germany

“Slaughterhouse” Muslim AXE Attacker Shouted “ALLAHU AKBAR” During Rampage on German Train, Had ISIS Flag

***

Also see:

How to Defeat Terrorism

isis_trojan_horse_america_article_banner_4-4-16-1.sized-770x415xbPJ MEDIA, BY DAVID SOLWAY, JULY 22, 2016

I admit at the outset that my title is partially misleading. Terrorism cannot be defeated, it can only be significantly reduced if the right measures are adopted. We are engaged in a war without end, a war that has gone on for fourteen centuries, a war that cannot be decisively won—but it is a war that we need not lose. We can limit the enemy’s ability to strike, keep him on the defensive, degrade his arsenal and confine him as far as possible to the peripheries of our world.

The necessary measures are not difficult to discern, but unlikely to be applied so long as our leaders are either weak or suborned, the media circulate their usual obfuscations, the academy persists in its ideological corruption, the talking heads keep talking before repairing to the security of their gated communities and tony neighborhoods, and the general populace remains mired in its habitual lassitude and fear of sounding politically incorrect.

The measures and policies that would need to be put in place are so obvious that the failure to implement them is nothing but a sign of lethal complacency and moral cowardice. What are these measures? The list is not unduly long and, as I say, entirely obvious.

  • Islamic immigration must be drastically curtailed if not completely stopped. As Donald Trump has cogently warned, “We are allowing people into our country who we have no idea where they are, where they’re from, who they are, they have no paperwork, they have no documentation, in many cases.” This, as the proverb goes, is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. But there are many more horses in the barn to be confined to their stalls. It’s a start.
  • Since large Muslim populations are already settled within our borders, surveillance must be intensive, methodical and ongoing. No-Go Zones must be pacified by whatever means, and must be made Go Zones. Self-regulated ghettoes have to be opened up and rigorously policed. Islamic law must be ruled in contravention of common law and legally prohibited. Vigorous action is required. As Andrew Bieszad, one of Walid Shoebat’s co-bloggers, reported at com, the mayor of Calais has now decided to act, to dismantle the so-called refugee “jungle” that has disfigured the town and to displace or deport thousands of its characteristically violent denizens. As Bieszad says, “It has taken a long time, but the French are finally pushing back against the Muslims in Calais.” But nowhere else, it appears.
  • All mosques, which are effectively command centers, must be stringently investigated and many must be closed down.
  • Every imam in the country should be thoroughly vetted and many should be de-licensed and restricted from preaching.
  • Jihadi suspects clearly and unequivocally known to law enforcement agencies should not be so readily allowed, as is far too often the case, to mix freely among the people. As has often been said, lone wolves are usually known wolves. Moreover, it is a mistake to consider them as “lone”; they are really part of a vast ideological pack. Of course, we would need to protect ourselves against abuse of authority where anyone in disfavor with policing agencies or political administrations can be randomly detained. Wolves may be responsibly “tagged,” so to speak, and monitored, whether digitally or in propia persona, by the intelligence community, with a reasonable prospect of interception before yet another outrage is committed—those like the Nice jihadist Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who, as The Washington Post reports, “had been connected to assault and theft since 2010” and sentenced to a six month prison term (though “[i]t was not clear whether Bouhlel served any of that sentence”). Admittedly, there is a fine line between liberty and security, the issue will always remain moot, and safeguards will have to be agreed upon even if we lose some battles along the way.
  • Muslims and non-Muslims who leave the country to fight alongside terrorist entities must not be repatriated, even if they are passport-holding citizens. They are accessories to those who would destroy us and are therefore enemy combatants.
  • Muslim organizations with ties to terror-sponsoring organizations or that lobby for Sharia or for cultural and political influence must be disbanded and outlawed, no matter how powerful and widespread.
  • No less important, indeed, perhaps the most crucial of the measures I am proposing, has to do with terminology and the concepts it signifies. We keep hearing that the enemy we are facing is “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.” Nothing can be further from the truth. This is the most serious in its consequences of the evasions we practice and one that ensures our eventual destruction. The enemy is not radical Islam but Islam pure and simple. The terrorists, their enablers and the “entry” cohort take their warrant from their holy scriptures—the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, the schools of jurisprudence, and centuries of political and religious commentary.

As Jeff Sanders writes in an article for PJ Media, “The ‘holy war’ in the Bible is limited to only one set of passages in the Old Testament… [and to a particular] piece of geography and that particular time period….God did not ever tell the Israelites to go conquer and take the land of the Egyptians or the Syrians or the Greeks or the Babylonians or anyone else. And they didn’t.…However, the commands in the Quran to make war on all unbelievers have no ‘sunset clause.’ All of these commands are open-ended. They are not limited in any way to any geographical boundaries or to a time period. They are for all faithful Muslims for all time.”

As for the smattering of peaceful and tolerant passages, “the Quran also teaches something called the ‘law of abrogation,’ [in which] a later revelation, if it contradicts an earlier one, must be obeyed (Surah 2:106)…So, those few peaceful and tolerant passages in the Quran [are] replaced with other, newer commands, [which are] not so peaceful and tolerant.” Few “experts,” commentators, intellectuals and lay people are ready to endorse so unpalatable a truth. It is far easier for them to accept the conventional pieties, to regard themselves as correct-thinking and enlightened beings, and to redefine pusillanimity as courage.

In summation, until we recognize that Islam itself—not only its presumably “radical” variants—is incompatible with pluralistic Western democracies, we will not be able to save our countries. Pushback is unlikely for some time yet, if ever. Notwithstanding, peaceful Muslims must be pressured by informed opinion to undertake a thoroughgoing transformation of their faith even if the result has little affinity with millennial orthodoxy. The liberal argument that, in so doing, we will drive the moderates into the arms of the radicals is a reductio ad absurdum and, as Milo Yiannopoulos pointed out in an interview with a typical mealy-mouthed British journalist, is actually a threat. Must we keep assuring these putative moderates that Islam is demonstrably a religion of peace in order to keep them moderate? “Be nice to us or we’ll kill more of you,” as Yiannopoulos puts it. Must we refrain from fighting an implacable foe at the risk of finding ever more of them? Is this how we respond to Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs? Such an argument is patently a confession of defeat and guarantees yet more of the same.

Should the measures I and others are recommending be instituted, Islam will not go away, and innocent people will still die in terrorist attacks or find their everyday lives to some extent imperiled by Islamic social and cultural incursions, although to a much diminished degree. Nevertheless, there is no other resolution to our dilemma, failing which the sequel is eminently predictable: the grizzly march of terrorist atrocities like those we have seen since 9/11 (and before) up to the latest carnage in Nice, dramatic Muslim inroads into the culture, eventual civil conflict and armed skirmishes on the streets of our cities, the rise of fascist parties profiting from the general malaise, and the inevitable disintegration of a way of life that we have ignorantly taken for granted.

“There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war—not just lip-service,” Robert Spencer writes, “but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.”

We are now at the inflexion point. Either we are prepared to continue being slaughtered like sheep and to lose our ancestral traditions of rights and freedoms, or we are determined to preserve our Judeo-Christian heritage and the best the West has to offer.

Choose.

Is Trump’s Muslim “Pause” Constitutional?

Getty Images

Getty Images

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

CounterJihad, July 22, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Published on Jul 13, 2016 by Gad Saad

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

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

 

Time for political elites to stand up to sharia

AP Photo | Francois Mori

AP Photo | Francois Mori

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

cr audio

Newt livechat on Nice

Minnesota ‘sharia law’ billboard causing a stir

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

minn-billboard

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

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

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

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

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

hijra2

Constitution, by Bethany Blankley, July 11, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

As Muammar al-Gaddafi famously remarked:

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

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

The Rape of Germany

AP_496697863300.sized-770x415xt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naturally, the German Left is against it:

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

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

“Sheer Horror” in Paris

blackoutCounterJihad, July 11, 2016:

Ben Judah is a journalist who comes especially well-recommended.  His two books, one about Russia and the other about London, have been hailed for their shockingly honest accounts of unpleasant truths.  Of his work on London, the New Statesman reviewer wrote:  “Every MP should be given a copy immediately. On every page lies an uncomfortable truth, in every paragraph sheer horror.”

Now he has turned to the rapid shift towards Islam in France.  Brought on by mass immigration and hardline Islamic preachers, Judah finds a neighborhood in the shadow of the tombs of French kings that is no longer French.

“The French are too scared to come and shop in Saint-Denis since the attacks. There’s fear. There’s less order — less police, more druggies, more dealers and more thieves. It’s getting worse. I tell you — ten years ago it was not this bad.”

How does the French state explain all this? I take the butcher’s accusation to the prefect. Grey-haired Philippe Galli is Saint-Denis’s most powerful official and the president’s envoy to the department of Seine-Saint-Denis. His throaty, gravelly voice is accustomed to power.

“Those same people who say there is a lack of authority,” snaps the 60-year-old prefect, “are the same ones who refuse the police access when they try and enter. Those from the Maghreb, by origin, permit themselves to behave in ways that would be unthinkable where they came from.”

He tells me that the secret services are currently monitoring 700 people at risk of radicalisation in Saint-Denis, and the police are too frightened to enter alone most areas under his control.

The whole of his piece should be read.

The French government has been drawing up counter-insurgency plans against those al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) have been recruiting.  Last year’s multiple major terror strikes in Paris not only led to the deaths of hundreds, but also highlighted the failure of European police authorities to handle the problem of rising Islamic radicalism.

Meanwhile, with French native birthrates continuing to be below replacement level, mass immigration has continued apace.  A quarter of teenagers in France are now Muslims, implying a future in which any radicalized Islam poses only a greater threat to the stability of the Republic.  Second generation immigrants, according to several major inquiries, seem to be the ones most inclined to radicalization.  The problems of France today may well pale in comparison to the problems of a generation from now.

Already Judah’s article identifies a rising Antisemitism that is driving French Jews from their homes.  But it is also driving non-Jewish French from their homes, and making those who continue to live in the changing neighborhoods feel besieged.

The response by the French has been a rising nationalism.  Even al Qaeda’s top figure in charge of recruting from France has endorsed the National Front.  “If the French don’t want war, they should vote Marine Le Pen,” he said. “OK, she’s a woman, and one can call her a racist.  But at least she defends the true values of France.”

Does she?  Judah cites a gay leftist who has come to feel inclined towards a more nationalist politics.  “I realised… my error of interpretation on immigration and Islamisation, which is a danger to liberty…. [A]ll around us this rise of halal, this halalisation of France through its dishes, it’s a conquest of France through its dishes, if you look closely.”

That has parallels in Germany, where nationalism is also rising as a response.  These stories may not be pleasant to read, but every wise person should consider them, and ponder what is to be done.

Also see:

Hammadi & Alwan: The Poster Boys of Refugee Terrorism (Kerry Says Doesn’t Exist)

terrorism-charges-kentucky

You know those background checks State promised us? They don’t even catch guys already on the radar of US and Iraqi intelligence.

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, July 8, 2016:

The Obama administration is trying to allay growing public fears that the thousands of Middle Eastern refugees it’s resettling in America — virtually all of whom are Muslim — pose a terrorist threat to the homeland.

Top US officials insist there’s no evidence refugee applicants who go through the U.S. screening process pose a greater security threat than members of any other immigrant group. They claim they are rigorously vetted for terrorist and criminal ties, and that resettlement communities throughout the US are safe.

“There is absolutely no evidence, my friends, zero evidence, that refugees who make it through this arduous process, pose any greater threat to our society than the members of any other group,” Secretary of State John Kerry said while visiting a Washington-area mosque recently.

“And it is important for people to know that,” he added, so they refrain from leveling “bigoted and hateful rhetoric” against the Muslim refugees.

But the secretary deserts the truth. The evidence is overwhelming that even known, hardened terrorists make it through the supposedly “arduous” process.

Perhaps the most egregious example is that of Iraqi refugees Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, two known al-Qaida terrorists who skated right through the administration’s supposedly rigorous screening program within months of each other. They were resettled in Nevada and Kentucky, despite being detained by authorities in Iraq for planting bombs that killed U.S. soldiers and despite having their fingerprints on file in a bomb database.

It’s instructive to examine their case in greater detail, because it shows just how dangerously flawed the U.S. refugee screening system is.

These weren’t refugees from war-torn Syria, where authorities have no reliable database of information to screen immigrants flooding the U.S., no terrorist or even criminal record of them.

Rather, Alwan and Hammadi came from Iraq, another ISIS hotspot, but where the U.S. has a large embassy and a client government, and a lot more information about refugee applicants. U.S. soldiers and military intelligence officers had operated in Iraq for several years, a much different story than in neighboring Syria, where there are few boots on the ground. They had detained and investigated bad guys on a daily basis in Iraq, collecting information on thousands of individuals and sharing it with the FBI, Homeland Security and the State Department.

In fact, plenty of derogatory information was collected on Alwan and Hammadi. Yet the U.S. refugee admissions program still failed to screen out these jihadi killers as security threats.

From 2003 until his capture by Iraqi authorities in May 2006, Alwan fired sniper rifles at U.S. forces and placed hundreds of IEDs in roadways to blow up Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles, as a member of al-Qaida in Iraq, the precursor to ISIS. Government documents reveal he bragged about how he and other insurgents “fucked up” Hummers and U.S. personnel with hidden bombs filled with ball-bearings, nails and gravel. He said that he had American soldiers for “lunch and dinner.”

Hammadi, for his part, also participated in IED attacks on US forces as a member of al-Qaida in Iraq. An experienced and well-known insurgent, he had been arrested not once, but twice by Iraqi authorities, according to an FBI affidavit.

In other words, both Alwan and Hammadi had long rap sheets and were on the radar of Iraqi and US intelligence. Alwan was even tracked crossing the border into Syria.

Yet both passed background checks and were declared “clean” by US immigration and security officials who followed the administration’s “arduous” refugee screening procedures.

Alwan entered the US in April 2009 and was resettled in Bowling Green, Ky. Hammadi entered the US in July 2009 and took up residence in Las Vegas before being moved to Bowling Green, where he soon reconnected with Alwan.

The pair of jihadists sought asylum as Iraqi war refugees, when in fact they were the enemy. As sympathetic refugees, they were invited to receive welfare and move into public housing, which happened to be located near high-security Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, where the army Nightstalker pilots involved in the raid on Osama bin Laden were based.

Their hatred for America — “I didn’t come here for America” but for “jihad,” Alwan stated — soon became apparent. Alwan spoke of targeting an Army captain in the US and possibly attacking other homeland targets.

The FBI began conducting undercover surveillance of Alwan and Hammadi, using a confidential informant to help spy on them. Agents soon learned that Alwan’s work at a power plant in Iraq was just cover. He was really a terrorist who worked as a sniper and bomb-maker targeting Americans on a daily basis.

One day, they overheard Alwan describing an IED consisting of three high-explosive artillery rounds that he helped build and plant in a roadway near Bayji, Iraq, in 2005. He said he regretted that it failed to detonate, noting in a conversation with the confidential source that he used a particular brand of remote cordless telephone base station to assemble the bomb.

The FBI investigated and found out the bomb had been recovered by US forces. In January 2011, analysts with the FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center were able to identify two latent fingerprints belonging to Alwan on the Senao brand phone component.

It confirmed case agents’ fears: a terrorist with serious bomb-making skills had infiltrated the U.S. as a refugee.

How could they wrap him up before he could attack Americans inside America? Problem was, Alwan and his co-conspirator Hammadi were here legally, aided, sheltered and protected by the State Department’s generous refugee program.

The FBI decided to set up a sting operation, enticing both suspects to participate in a terrorist scheme to procure and ship weapons — including sniper rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled launchers, Stinger missiles and C4 pastic explosives — to al-Qaida in Iraq.

The trap worked. Alwan even drew several diagrams of IEDs to help the “mujahidin” kill US troops.

Luckily, both Alwan and Hammadi were put away for 40 years in 2013 for providing material support to al-Qaida. But how many more like them are out there plotting? Alwan spoke of “other cell members” in Bowling Green. And how many additional terrorists-posing-as-refugees are slipping through the net right now?

Maddeningly, the FBI overheard Alwan in one conversation say the he could not go back to Iraq because “I am wanted there.” Yet he was welcomed here with open arms.

While Iraqi refugees are hard enough to screen for terrorist ties, FBI Director James Comey testified last year that it is virtually impossible to conduct background checks on Syrian refugees. “We have no information” on them, he warned.

Yet the State Department is on track to meet President Obama’s target of resettling 10,000 Syrian refugees in cities across America during fiscal year 2016.

Last month, the number of Syrian refugee admissions surged to more than 2,380 — more than double the number the State Department resettled in the U.S. in May.

A recent poll of 900 Syrian refugees by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that as many as 23% — or almost 1 in 4 of them — could be susceptible to ISIS recruitment.

That means as many as 2,300 of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that Obama is resettling inside American cities are potential terrorist threats.

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

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, June 29, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop Importing Jihadists- A Policy Prescription

1949093373

Center for Security Policy, June 28, 2016:

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

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

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

Stop Importing Jihadists- Executive Summary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                     27 June 2016      

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information contact:                                                                                               

Alex Vanness

vanness@securefreedom.org