Europe: The Substitution of a Population

Gatestone Institute, by Giulio Meotti, August 27, 2016:

  • In one generation, Europe will be unrecognizable.
  • Eastern Europe now has “the largest population loss in modern history”, while Germany overtook Japan by having the world’s lowest birth rate.
  • Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.

Deaths that exceed births might sound like science fiction, but they are now Europe’s reality. It just happened. During 2015, 5.1 million babies were born in the EU, while 5.2 million persons died, meaning that the EU for the first time in modern history recorded a negative natural change in its population. The numbers come from Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union), which since 1961 has been counting Europe’s population. It is official.

There is, however, another surprising number: the European population increased overall from 508.3 million to 510.1 million. Have you guessed why? The immigrant population increased, by about two million in one year, while the native European population was shrinking. It is the substitution of a population. Europe has lost the will to maintain or grow its population. The situation is as demographically as seismic as during the Great Plague of the 14th Century.

This shift is what the British demographer David Coleman described in his study, “Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries: A Third Demographic Transition.” Europe’s suicidal birth rate, coupled with migrants who multiply faster, will transform European culture. The declining fertility rate of native Europeans coincides, in fact, with the institutionalization of Islam in Europe and the “re-Islamization” of its Muslims.

In 2015, Portugal recorded the second-lowest birth rate in the European Union (8.3 per 1,000 inhabitants) and negative natural growth of -2.2 per 1,000 inhabitants. Which EU country had the lowest birth rate? Italy. Since the “baby boom” of the 1960s, in the country famous for its large families, the birth rate has more halved. In 2015, the number of births fell to 485,000, fewer than in any other year since the modern Italy was formed in 1861.

Eastern Europe now has “the largest population loss in modern history“, while Germany overtook Japan by having the world’s lowest birth rate, when averaged over past five years. In Germany and Italy, the decreases were particularly dramatic, down -2.3% and -2.7% respectively.

Out with the old, in with the new… Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.

Some businesses are no longer even interested in European markets. Kimberly-Clark, which makes Huggies diapers, has pulled out of most of Europe. The market is simply not cost-effective. Meanwhile, Procter & Gamble, which produces Pampers diapers, has been investing in the business of the future: diapers for old people.

Europe is becoming gray; you can feel all the sadness of a world that has consumed itself. In 2008, the countries of the European Union saw the birth of 5,469,000 children. Five years later, there were nearly half a million fewer, 5,075,000 — a decrease of 7%. Fertility rates have not only fallen in countries with aching economies, such as Greece, but also in countries such as Norway, which sailed through the financial crisis.

As Lord Sacks recently said, “falling birth rates could spell the end of the West“. Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.

Liberals and secularists tend to dismiss the importance of demographic and cultural issues. That is why the most important warnings come from some Christian leaders. The first to denounce this dramatic trend was a great Italian missionary, Father Piero Gheddo, who explained that, due to falling birth rates and religious apathy, “Islam would sooner rather than later conquer the majority in Europe”. He was followed by others, such as Lebanese Cardinal Bechara Rai, who leads the Eastern Catholics aligned with the Vatican. Rai warned that “Islam will conquer Europe by faith and birth rate“. A similar warning just came from yet another cardinal, Raymond Leo Burke.

In one generation from now, Europe will be unrecognizable. People in Europe now largely seem to feel that the identity of their civilization is threatened primarily by a frivolous libertarianism, an ideology under the guise of freedom, that wants to deconstruct all the ties that bind man to his family, his parentage, his work, his history, his religion, his language, his nation, his freedom. It seems to come from an inertia that does not care if Europe succeeds or succumbs, if our civilization disappears, drowned by ethnic chaos, or is overrun by a new religion from the desert.

As a paper in the Washington Quarterly explains, the fatal meeting between Europe’s falling birth rates and rise of Islam has already had significant consequences: Europe has turned into an incubator of terrorism; formed a new poisonous anti-Semitism; seen a political shift to the far right; undergone the biggest crisis in European authoritarian unity and witnessed a refocusing of foreign policy since Europe’s withdrawal from the Middle East.

Demographic suicide is not only experienced; it appears to be wanted. The xenophile European bourgeoisie, which today controls politics and the media, seem imbued with a snobbish and masochistic racism. They have turned against the values of their own Judeo-Christian culture and combined it with a hallucinatory, romanticized view of the values of other cultures. The sad paradox is that Europeans are now importing young people in large numbers from the Middle East to compensate for their lifestyle choices.

An agnostic and sterile continent — deprived of its gods and children because it banished them — will have no strength to fight or to assimilate a civilization of the zealous and the young. The failure to counter the coming transformation seems to come down on the side of Islam. Is what we are seeing the last days of summer?

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

While Living in Maine, Killed ISIS Jihadist Was on Food Stamps, Government Assistance

food-stamps

After four months, the refugee’s “sponsoring” organization is not even required to know where the refugee lives.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 25, 2016:

Before he ended up dead after fighting for the Islamic State in Lebanon, an Iranian Muslim immigrant named Adnan Fazeli received U.S. government assistance while radicalizing in the United States.

Maine’s officials have revealed that “Fazeli was on food stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for at least four years until 2013.” Maine’s Governor Paul LePage is ordering an examination into “all such benefits in his state.” But Fazeli wasn’t the only beneficiary of government funding in the case, so were Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the major contractors (voluntary agencies – VOLAGs) the U.S. government gives substantial funds to in order to resettle refugees. Capital Research Center, an investigative think tank, reveals some startling information about the radical makeup of Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops despite their benign sounding names:

These nominally Catholic organizations are the largest VOLAGs, with hundreds of offices spread throughout the country. They are prominent members of the open borders/amnesty movement. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) is “the domestic anti-poverty program of the U.S. Catholic Bishops” and a grant-making vehicle of the USCCB. It was founded in Chicago in 1969 with the help of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, specifically to fund Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. CCHD has been a radical leftist funding vehicle ever since, giving millions to ACORN, the radical training school Midwest Academy, and others. The Industrial Areas Foundation, where a young Barack Obama was trained in “community organizing” with financial support from the Chicago Archdiocese, receives the largest percentage of CCHD grants of any CCHD grantee.

Furthermore, Capital Research Center provides data that shows the millions of dollars in government grants that Catholic Charities/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have received over recent years to resettle refugees.

So how does Catholic Charities relate to the Fazeli case? Let’s find out.

There’s not a lot of divulged information about Fazeli’s start in America, but he did originally arrive in Philadelphia via a Catholic Charities program. However, the affidavit allegedly doesn’t mention “where that program was based.” According to the Portland Press Herald, after Fazeli made his way to Maine in 2009, he didn’t qualify for assistance from Catholic Charities Maine, but the organization apparently hired him for several months that same year where he operated as a part-time translator. It seems like our tax money is being thrown at VOLAGs like Catholic Charities to resettle refugees, but with little in return for U.S. national security, Refugee Resettlement Watch states:

Refugee resettlement is profitable to the organizations involved in it. They receive money from the federal government for each refugee they bring over. They have almost no real responsibilities for these refugees. After 4 months the “sponsoring” organization is not even required to know where the refugee lives.

What’s even more disturbing is the attitude of Catholic Charities Maine’s Tarlan Ahmadov, the program director of refugee and immigrant services, in regards to the Fazeli incident: “This country is based on immigration,” Ahmadov said. “We are all here with good intentions.

“I’m just worried about his family and his children and his wife, that they would not become hated by their neighbors or other people. This was the choice of their father and husband to make. It’s nothing to do with the children. I think we should look at that different perspective.”

If Ahmadov really thinks all immigrants come to the U.S. with “good intentions” maybe he could do a Bible study on human nature (Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 15:19, etc.). Furthermore, Ahmadov should be more concerned about the next potential jihadist that walks through Catholic Charities’ doors and keeping their taxpayer funded (partially) services from being used to further jihad, especially against the American people. This is the type of reaction one generally sees from Islamist groups like the Hamas linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who are more concerned about protecting non-violent ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ than exposing their co-religionists that blow innocent people up.

There are also a lot of questions into how Fazeli radicalized, and if his family actually knew about his desire for jihad. Of course, some will focus on the part of the affidavit that allegedly claimed “Fazeli frequently watched hours of Islamic videos online…” giving the impression that his radicalization was isolated. There’s almost always a network of contributors involved in these cases of radicalization besides just online videos. George Loder, a detective for the Maine State Police, gives some insight into possible members of Fazeli’s network, allegedly written in the affidavit:

“Fazeli’s change in behavior alienated him from many of his Shia and moderate Sunni friends in the area. However, there were a few local Sunnis who supported his fervor and treated him with a great deal of respect. Fazeli started holding occasional religious meetings at his home in Freeport,” Loder said in the affidavit, describing what one informant had said.

The family, as usual, denies all knowledge of Fazeli’s radical plans to join ISIS. Supposedly they only found out after he called his wife when already outside the U.S. Soon after that call is when Fazeli’s nephew, Ebrahim Fazeli, informed the authorities about his uncle.

There are many things in the Fazeli case that don’t add up. More information about the case will likely continue to come out to help clarify current intelligence gaps. We know that more needs to be done to enhance the security and accountability of the refugee resettlement process as well as measures that lead to welfare reform. Until changes happen to the current system we can expect more welfare funded jihadis in America.

MORE ABOUT COLONIZATION BY IMMIGRATION

Thanks to Trump, maybe more Republicans will start to go on the offensive:

Just how radical has Hillary become on illegal immigration?

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

Carolyn Kaster | AP Photo

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

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

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4351026/clinton-1995-immigration-sotu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

Podcast : Play in new window | Download

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

Also see:

What’s Trump’s Policy on Visas for Muslims?

Trump and PenceMEF, by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
August 17, 2016

The discussion began last December, when Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” This proclamation aroused so much opposition that Trump changed his position – several times, in fact. Where do things stand now on this supremely contentious issue and what can we expect were he elected president?

Trump’s position began to evolve on July 14, when he called for the “extreme vetting” of immigrants: “if a person can’t prove that they’re from an area, and if a person can’t prove what they have to be able to prove, they’re not coming into this country.” Nothing about Muslims here, just about accurate identification.

In a joint interview with the Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence on July 17, Pence was asked to explain the discrepancy between his earlier denunciation of Trump’s ban on Muslims and his new-found support for it. But before Pence could answer, Trump jumped in: “So you call it territories. Okay, we’re gonna do territories. We’re gonna not let people come in from Syria that nobody knows who they are.” He elaborated about prohibiting nationals from what he called “terror states and terror nations” from entering the United States.

Accepting the Republican nomination on July 21, Trump offered a more articulate and authoritative statement of this new position: “We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place. We don’t want them in our country.”

On July 24, Trump specified two of those “terror nations”: “I’m talking territory instead of Muslim. …We have nations and we’ll come out … over the next few weeks with a number of the places. And it’s very complex. We have problems in Germany and we have problems with France. So it’s not just the countries with …” (it appears he was going to say “a Muslim majority” but was interrupted and did not finish the sentence).

Those few weeks later, on Aug. 15, Trump did not provide more places. Quite contrarily, he called for “a new screening test” to exclude all those with “hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Shariah law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country. Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued visas.” He again called for the temporary suspension of immigration, but this time “from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.”

This medley of inconsistencies and contradictions points to several conclusions.

Obviously, Trump is no policy wonk but an amateur working out his thoughts under the glare of the biggest klieg lights. Put differently, he does respond to sustained criticism, even fundamentally changing one of his signature policies. Indeed, Trump has gone further and in May signaled his complete flexibility: “Look, anything I say right now – I’m not the president – everything is a suggestion.” Thus did he put Americans on notice that he reserves the right to switch views on any topic at any time.

Second, his change from banning Muslims to citizens from countries “compromised by terrorism” took him from a coherent, if ugly, policy to one that is self-evidently infeasible. If Germans and French are unwelcome on account of their jihadis, who might enter the United States? The border will be slammed shut to all save for the nationals of such fortunate countries as Iceland and Costa Rica. Israel, “our greatest ally,” must be near the top of Trump’s no-entry list.

The most recent change both makes sense and is laudable; indeed, it very satisfyingly tracks my advice of eight months ago suggesting that Trump “ban Islamists, not Muslims.” He’s no longer rejecting all Muslims but discerning friend from foe, a crucial distinction that can indeed be achieved given sufficient resources, time, and intelligence.

This sequence points to Trump being able to learn – slowly and erratically, to be sure – from his mistakes. It also indicates that, were he elected president, he would have a mandate to adopt virtually any policies he wishes on the grounds that “everything is a suggestion.”

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.

***

CJR: Do have a look at the article linked above to see a detailed explanation of what “extreme vetting” looks like: 

I especially like the following suggestion regarding the framing of questions. It acknowledges the different meanings that potential jihadists apply to our Western terminology as explained in my recent post, Weaponized rhetoric of jihad.

Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of “Is Islam a religion of peace?”, “Do you condemn terrorism?” “How do you respond to the murder of innocents,” depend too much on one’s definition of words like peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person’s outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: “May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?”

Also see:

The Case for Extreme Immigrant Vetting

download (3)

It’s a practice as American as apple pie—and for good reason.

Politico, by GEORGE J. BORJAS, August 17, 2016

In his major foreign policy speech earlier this week, Donald Trump explained how he would expand the “ideological” vetting of immigrants who want to come to the United States. “The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today,” he said. “I call it extreme vetting.” In particular, Trump proposed, “We must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles—or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

As with practically all of Trump’s policy statements, the over-the-top commentary came swiftly. Over at the Washington Post an opinionator opined (and I’m only slightly paraphrasing) that Trump’s ideas were crazier than crazy. I knew it wouldn’t take long before somebody called them un-American, and MSNBC nicely obliged; a commentator commented that “this is the single most un-American thing I have ever heard in my life.”

If all those pundits had bothered to do just a couple of minutes of googling before reacting, they would have discovered that immigrant vetting, and even extreme immigrant vetting, has a very long tradition in American history. Since before the founding even, U.S. policies about whom the country chooses to welcome and reject have changed in response to changing conditions. As early as 1645, the Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited the entry of poor or indigent persons. By the early 20th century, the country was filtering out people who had “undesirable” traits, such as epileptics, alcoholics and polygamists. Today, the naturalization oath demands that immigrants renounce allegiance to any foreign state. Even our Favorite Founding Father du jour, Alexander Hamilton (himself an immigrant), thought it was important to scrutinize whoever came to the United States. He wrote:

To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they put foot in our country … would be nothing less, than to admit the Grecian Horse into the Citadel of our Liberty and Sovereignty. … The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass. … In times of great public danger there is always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone weakens the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

In other words, immigration vetting is as American as apple pie.

In the colonial era, governments were particularly concerned with the entry of “public charges” who could impart substantial costs on the indigenous population. In 1691, the Province of New York must have hired a professional economist to design a bonding system that would discourage the entry of people who would be a drag on public resources:

All Persons that shall come to inhabit within this Province … and hath not a visible Estate, or hath not a manual occupation, shall, before he be admitted an Inhabitant, give sufficient surety, That he shall not be a burden or Charge to the respective places, he shall come to Inhabit. Which Security shall continue for two years.

And in 1740, Delaware enacted legislation to “Prevent Poor and Impotent Persons being Imported.” Many of these colonial-era restrictions remained in place until 1875, when the Supreme Court invalidated state-imposed head taxes on immigrants to fund the financial burden of caring for poor entrants, and made immigration the sole purview of the federal government. But that wasn’t the end of immigrant filters. Congress responded by creating the vetting system that—although modified many times—remains in place today. In 1875, Congress prohibited the entry of prostitutes and convicts. In 1882, Congress suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers, and added idiots, lunatics and persons likely to become public charges to the list for good measure.

One of my favorite examples of the extreme vetting is the 1917 Immigration Act, which, in addition to effectively barring immigration from Asia, listed the many traits that would make potential immigrants inadmissible. The following quote is very long, but it shows the excruciating detail with which Americans have historically resorted to extreme vetting:

All idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons; persons who have had one or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority; persons with chronic alcoholism; paupers; professional beggars; vagrants; persons afflicted with tuberculosis in any form or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living; persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; polygamists, or persons who practice polygamy or believe in or advocate the practice of polygamy; anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or who disbelieve in or are opposed to organized government, or who advocate the assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach the unlawful destruction of property; persons who are members of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocate or teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers … of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government.

In other words, even a century ago we had put in place ideological filters against anarchists, persons who advocate the destruction of property, and persons who believe in overthrowing the government of the United States.

Of course, some of these filters, such as those restricting the entry of epileptics or Asians, have long since been rolled back—and for good reason. But many of them—especially those pertaining to criminals, and people who are likely to work against U.S. interests—remain in current law, with additions that reflect the changing security landscape. Hijacking and drug trafficking, for example, became major concerns only in the past few decades, and the law changed accordingly to ensure that it became more difficult for hijackers and drug traffickers to enter the country.

Here is the application filled out by green card applicants today (Form I-485). Among the many questions are:

Have you EVER, in or outside the United States:

a. Knowingly committed any crime of moral turpitude or a drug-related offense for which you have not been arrested?

Have you EVER:

a. Within the past 10 years been a prostitute or procured anyone for prostitution, or intend to engage in such activities in the future?

b. Engaged in any unlawful commercialized vice, including, but not limited to, illegal gambling

c. Knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or aided any alien to try to enter the U.S. illegally?

d. Illicitly trafficked in any controlled substance, or knowingly assisted, abetted, or colluded in the illicit trafficking of any controlled substance?

Have you EVER engaged in, conspired to engage in, or do you intend to engage in, or have you ever solicited membership or funds for, or have you through any means ever assisted or provided any type of material support to any person or organization that has ever engaged or conspired to engage in sabotage, kidnapping, political assassination, hijacking, or any other form of terrorist activity?

Do you intend to engage in the United States in:

a. Espionage?

b. Any activity a purpose of which is opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States, by force, violence, or other unlawful means?

Have you EVER been a member of, or in any way affiliated with, the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?

Did you, during the period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, in association with either the Nazi Government of Germany or any organization or government associated or allied with the Nazi Government of Germany, ever order, incite, assist, or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion?

And, finally, here’s part of the oath that immigrants who wish to become citizens of the United States must recite at the naturalization ceremony:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; … that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law.

In view of this almost 400-year track record, is it really that big a stretch to add questions, as Trump proposes, that would expand the filtering to reflect political conditions and national security concerns today? In particular, is it really that big a departure from what we have done in the past if we also asked green card applicants: “Do you believe that religious law should supplant the Constitution of the United States?” Or if we asked: “Do you believe that the law should treat people differentially based on their gender, their race, or their sexual orientation?” And would it really be that unreasonable if we had second thoughts about admitting persons who answered those questions in the affirmative? Are there really that many Americans who would disagree with the notion that a reasonable immigration policy should, in Trump’s words, keep out “those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred”?

Of course, it is sensible to wonder whether such filters are effective. I doubt that the 9/11 terrorists admitted in their applications for foreign student visas that they planned to use their flight training to fly planes into the World Trade Center. But the fact that such filtering is far from perfect does not imply that we should not have any filters whatsoever. If nothing else, the perjury in the visa application gives the government an easy way for detaining and deporting dangerous immigrants living in our midst, even after they become American citizens. The falsification or concealment of relevant facts during the application process provides grounds for the removal of a green card, for the revoking of naturalization, and for eventual deportation.

The many filters that have been used throughout American history to determine who will and will not get an entry visa have an obvious purpose. Yes, some of them, in the hindsight of history, seemed to have had no constructive purpose. But for the most part, they helped to strengthen the social and political fabric of our country and they helped to define the common set of values that distinguishes us as Americans. Or to quote Alexander Hamilton again: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits.”

So, regardless of what you think about the Trump candidacy, the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal for immigrant vetting is un-American, the correct response is that it is American to its core. And the next time you hear that Trump’s proposal is crazier than crazy, the correct response is that—given the mess the world is in—it is the notion that we should not vet immigrants more carefully that is certifiably insane.

George J. Borjas is a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. This article from has been adapted from an essay previously published on his blog.

***

Trump Counter-Terror Speech: What’s Right; What Needs Work

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (Photo: video screenshot)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (Photo: video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Aug. 16, 2016:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump outlined his proposed counter-terrorism strategy yesterday. He laid out an impressive ideology-based strategy that includes uplifting Muslim reformers; however, he also vindicated decades of Islamist propaganda by emphasizing his opinion that the U.S. should have taken Iraq’s oil from its people, which would have required a long-term military occupation to protect it.

What Was Right

The parts of the speech about waging an ideological war on radical Islam were a breath of fresh air.

Criticizing of the past two administrations for not identifying the enemy is not an inconsequential squabbling over semantics. It’s an organizing principle. It is necessary for distinguishing friend from foe and waging the war of ideas. Confronting this ideology should be enthusiastically received by liberals/progressives and conservatives alike.

Trump explained, “Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.”

“My administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. Our administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East and will amplify their voices. This includes speaking out against the horrible practice of honor killings…” he continued.

When it comes to outlining the radical Islamic beliefs that we must confront, Trump knocked it out of the park, saying:

“A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people. In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test of the threats we face today.

“In addition to screening out all members of sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles—or who believe that sharia law should supplant American law.

“Those who do not believe in our Constitution or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

He also called for deporting non-citizens who preach hatred, teaching our values and patriotism to newcomers and wisely talked about why assimilation is an “expression of compassion,” rather than “an act of hostility.”

Casting aside his ridiculous and offensive idea of a ban on all Muslims from entering the U.S., he instead advocated “extreme” ideological vetting based around American values.

Dr. Daniel Pipes has some recommendations on a vetting process can separate Islamists from Muslims we should embrace showing that this process is possible by using background checks, link analysis of what groups potential immigrants have associated with and questioning.

What Needs Work

Although this may be coming at a later date, Trump did not provide details of his counter-terrorism strategy except for his plan to halt inappropriate immigration. Trump pledged to uplift moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, something that is extremely necessary, yet did not mention embracing the Iranian opposition.

If Trump wants to be an ally with Muslim reformers and pro-human rights, his plan for a temporary ban on immigration from unstable countries known for exporting terrorism has to be amended to account for persecuted minorities or reformist Muslims fleeing those countries. For example, immigration for persecuted Coptic Christian from Egypt or a Muslim who is swarmed with death threats for challenging honor killings in Pakistan must fall into a special category.

Interestingly, Trump sees “secular” dictators like Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Muammar Qaddafi and Hosni Mubarak as net pluses. In other speeches, he has blasted the pursuit of regime changes and undermining of governments.

Isn’t this a contradiction to promoting Muslim reformers?

Playing Into the Hands of Islamists

In the speech Trump firmly stated his opinion that the United States should have seized Iraqi’s oil production capabilites, which have required an indefinite occupation of the country.

“I was saying this constantly and to whoever would listen: Keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil. I said, ‘don’t let someone else get it.’…In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils,” he said.

For decades, one of the main—and most fruitful—Islamist talking points is that the West, particularly the U.S., is scheming to steal oil from the Muslims and is happy to lie and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocents to get it.

This breeds relentless hostility to American and the West and favorability towards Islamism. If that propaganda is seen as an undeniable fact (though statements such as these), then it becomes almost impossible for moderate Muslim reformers to succeed.

Those who argue that violent jihad against America is permissible use this very argument.

Until now, when speaking to the masses, Islamists had to block statement after statement from American politicians that America is not after the oil of the Muslims.

Now, jihadis have clips of an American presidential candidate supported by about 41% of the country advocating what they’ve claimed all along—that the U.S. wants to militarily conquer their land and take their resources.

***

Prof. Ryan Mauro, Clarion Project’s national security analyst, appears on “The Thom Hartmann Show,” the #1 progressive radio show, to discuss Donald Trump’s counter-terrorism speech on August 15.

‘The War Is Here’: Trump & Gorka Warn of Worsening ISIS Threat

gorkatrump

Fox News Insider, Aug. 18, 2016:

Donald Trump joined Sean Hannity tonight for an exclusive town hall conversation about the threats of ISIS and radical Islam.

Counterterrorism expert and author Dr. Sebastian Gorka joined Trump and Hannity onstage at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee, declaring that President Obama, Hillary Clinton and those who think like them simply don’t understand the dire threat we’re facing.

“The war is real and the war is here,” Gorka said. “This is a threat that is real and is escalating every day.”

He pointed out that not only has ISIS turned Iraq and Syria into a “hellhole,” there is now an ISIS-related attack abroad every 84 hours.

Gorka said that Trump’s proposals will “absolutely” keep Americans safer than those of Obama or Clinton.

“If you don’t have borders, you don’t have security,” Gorka said. “If Hillary Clinton becomes the commander-in-chief and continues the policies of this administration, American lives will be endangered.”

***

Trump Meets Victims of Radical Islamic Terror at ‘Hannity’ Town Hall

During a “Hannity” town hall event tonight, Donald Trump spoke to several victims of radical Islamic terror.

Karen McWatters, who lost a leg in the Boston Marathon bombing, said that we need leaders who will speak openly and honestly about the threats facing our country.

Trump said that unlike President Obama and Hillary Clinton, he actually wants to do something to protect Americans from radical Islamists, and that’s why he’s advocating “extreme vetting” of any immigrants coming into the U.S.

Kris Paronto, one of the heroes of Benghazi, and Dorothy Woods, whose husband Ty Woods was killed in the 2012 terror attack, agreed that there’s no doubt that we’re at war with radical Islam in the U.S. and abroad.

“I believe in the vetting process,” Paronto said. “Not all Muslims are bad, but the Muslim community in America – they are Americans because they’re here – they need to start speaking out publicly and condemning.”

***

Trump on ‘Extreme Vetting’: Orlando Shooter’s Dad Should Be ‘Thrown Out’

The Orlando shooter’s father should be “thrown out” of the United States, Donald Trump said in a Hannity town hall event that aired last night.

Trump, who earlier this week laid out his plan for “extreme vetting” of those who want to emigrate from Middle Eastern nations, was asked about how he would handle Seddique Mateen.

“I’d throw him out,” said Trump, mentioning Mateen’s attendance at a Hillary Clinton rally in Florida earlier this month.

“He’s got a big smile on his face throughout the whole thing. He obviously liked what he heard from her,” said Trump.

Hannity noted that Mateen, whose son murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub, had expressed “radical” views in the past and support for the Taliban.

Trump said Muslims living in the United States need to help authorities in identifying possible terrorists before they strike.

“If they’re not gonna help us, they’re to blame also,” he said.

Trump argued that in San Bernardino there were warning signs about the couple that carried out the attack on an office building last year. But he said that neighbors did not call policebecause they didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling the couple.

Watch the whole thing:

Sweden: The Silence of the Jews

Part IV of a Series: The Islamization of Sweden

Gatestone Institute, by Ingrid Carlqvist, August 16, 2016:

  • “It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism is not just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it is routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It is our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.” — Mehdi Hasan,The New Statesman.
  • “There isn’t much of a desire to do anything about it [the problem of antisemitism]. It should also be said that the so-called interfaith outreach work… achieves almost nothing. A couple of old bearded men get together and agree on some dietary thing they’ve got in common, but it doesn’t solve the fact that anti-Semitism mainly comes from Muslim communities these days. … that that’s taught in many mosques and many Muslim schools…” — Douglas Murray, British commentator.
  • The question that arises is, are the elites of Sweden in general suffering from a case of Stockholm syndrome? Are we encouraging our adversaries to Islamize Sweden, which in the long run, might result in the abolition of freedom of religion, forcing Jews and Christians to live as dhimmis [subjugated citizens] in humiliation?
  • If by allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to settle here — people much more hateful of Jews than the average German during the Nazi era — are we not in fact paving the way for another Holocaust?

One of the most visible effects of Muslim mass immigration into Sweden is that anti-Semitism is very much on the rise in the country. Swedish Jews are being harassed and threatened, mainly in the Muslim-dense city of Malmö, where in January 2009, the friction deepened during a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration. Demonstrators were attacked by pro-Palestinian counter demonstrators, who threw eggs and bottles at the supporters of Israel. The mayor of Malmö at the time, Ilmar Reepalu, failed to take a clear stance against the violence, and was accused of preferring the approval of the city’s large Muslim population to protecting Jews. He remarked, among other things, that “of course the conflict in Gaza has spilled over into Malmö.”

In January 2009, an Arab mob in Malmö pelted a peaceful Jewish demonstration with bottles, eggs and smoke bombs. The police pushed the Jews, who had a permit for their gathering, into an alley.

The situation in Malmö has twice been deemed so alarming that U.S. President Barack Obama sent Special Representatives to the city: Hanna Rosenthal visited in 2012, and Ira Forman came in 2015. “We are keeping an eye on Malmö,” Forman told the media.

The harassment of Malmö’s Jews was, for a long time, a mystery to the general public; Were neo-Nazis really walking the streets of Sweden’s third largest city? Many believed that to be the case, until the local daily paper Skånska Dagbladet published a series of articles, in which the Jewish community finally pointed out the elephant in the room: Malmö’s growing Muslim population.

Fredrik Sieradzki of Malmö’s Jewish community explained that when he grew up, Jews could still wear a kippa (skullcap) without anyone bothering them: “Nobody dares do that now,” he said.

Malmö Rabbi Shneur Kesselman, one of very few Orthodox Jews in Sweden who wears a traditional Hassidic black hat and frock-coat, has, in the last few years, filed more than 50 complaints with the police about various kinds of harassment. On May 31, 2016, an 18-year-old Muslim by the name of Amir Ali Mohammed was finally convicted of shouting “Jewish bastard” at Kesselman. The media, however, chose not to publish any information about Mohammed’s name or religion.

In June 2016, a report with a special focus on Sweden was published, entitled “Different Antisemitisms: On three distinct forms of antisemitism in contemporary Europe.” Its authors, Swedish researchers Lars Dencik and Karl Marosi, based the report on two studies, conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA).

The report states that the Swedish anti-Semitism, leading mostly to verbal attacks on Jews, comes from Muslims. The ADL study, encompassing eight European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and Britain), showed that Sweden has the least anti-Semitic population. Only 4% of Swedes are classified as anti-Semites, compared to 41% of Hungarians. Sweden, in fact, came in number 100 out of 102 countries studied, followed only by Laos and the Philippines.

The FRA study asked Jews in various countries what group of people had attacked or threatened them: Far-right extremists, far-left extremists, Christian extremists or Muslim extremists. In Sweden, out of 81 Jews asked, 51 stated they had been attacked by Muslims, 25 by far-left extremists, 5 by far-right extremists, and none by Christian extremists.

There can be little doubt, therefore, that ethnic Swedes do not have a problem with Jews, and that the rampant anti-Semitism in Sweden is apparently due to Muslims from the Middle East, who now make up 10% of the population.

The British current events analyst and commentator, Douglas Murray, said in a recent interview, that Muslims in Europe have big problems with anti-Semitism. He referred to an article in the New Statesman, in which Muslim Mehdi Hasan wrote:

“It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism is not just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it is routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It is our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.”

Murray points out that anti-Semitism is a widespread sentiment among Muslims, even among those who have lived for decades in Europe. When asked what the West can do about the problem, Murray said:

“We may not be able to [do anything]. I wouldn’t have thought France would be able to, I cannot see any particular long-term future for Jews in France. … There will be some countries, when Muslim anti-Semitism grows, say it is not the Jews who should leave, but the people who would make the Jews leave. There are some countries where that may happen, but other countries where it will fail.

“There isn’t much of a desire to do anything about it. … it should also be said that the so-called interfaith outreach work, which the Jewish community places a lot of hope in, achieves almost nothing… A couple of old bearded men get together and agree on some dietary thing they’ve got in common, but it doesn’t solve the fact that anti-Semitism mainly comes from Muslim communities these days; it doesn’t solve the problem, the fact that that’s taught in many mosques and many Muslim schools, and it doesn’t address the fact that now, if you go to, if Israel does anything anywhere in the world, anywhere in its region, there will immediately be a protest of very angry young Muslims in the center of London and other British cities. You can have an old rabbi and an old mullah, you know, sitting around having tea, agreeing on dietary stuff, but that doesn’t solve why the hatred is being taught. And that’s something the rabbi and the Jewish leadership in this country, among other places, just don’t want to admit to. Perhaps it’s too bad to confront?”

The question that arises is, are the elites of Sweden in general suffering from a case of Stockholm syndrome? Are we encouraging our adversaries to Islamize Sweden, which in the long run, might result in the abolition of freedom of religion, forcing Jews and Christians to live as dhimmis [subjugated citizens] in humiliation?

Read  more

Ingrid Carlqvist is a journalist and author based in Sweden, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute.

Is Trump’s “Extreme Vetting” That Far Off Existing US Policies

ct-donald-trump-extreme-vetting-immigrants-20160817Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, Aug. 16, 2016:

While the MSM has gone out of its way to question every plausible unintended consequence(s) of Donald Trump’s new “extreme” vetting for immigrants, perhaps it is worth looking at some of the current questions the US Immigration Services asks and compare those to Trump’s proposals. They may not be that far off.

To recap, Trump proposed an ideological test of “Islamic sympathizers” to be admitted, focusing on issues including religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights.

And while some have questioned the validity of a test, and whether a presumed terrorist would even be honest in said test, the experts and political pundits should take a look at what the US currently asks individuals.

  • Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
  • Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
  • Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
  • Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
  • Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
  • Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
  • Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in torture?
  • Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
  • Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?

Evidently, if any of the US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) answered these questions honestly, they would not be admitted to the US. But, perhaps the best question still being asked to all immigrants is as follows:

  • Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

If the US government currently engages in these and other questionings, is it that far off to ask  if you are anti gay rights, anti Semitic or pro sharia law?

***

Muslim refugee brought to Maine by Catholic Charities dies waging jihad for the Islamic State

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 16, 2016:

Catholic Charities is criminally irresponsible and suicidally short-sighted. They are endangering people in Maine and all over the United States by bringing these jihadis into American communities that are unprepared for them, all the while lying to them and telling them that there is no jihad threat related to the refugees, and that anyone who says otherwise is a racist and a bigot and a dissenter from the magisterium.

Adnan Fazeli went to the Islamic State to wage his jihad. What if he had decided to wage it right there in Portland, Maine? What’s to stop the next jihadi refugee that Catholic Charities brings to Portland from deciding to do just that?

Islamic-State

“Documents: Freeport man died fighting for Islamic State,” by Scott Dolan and Megan Doyle, Portland Press Herald, August 16, 2016:

An Iranian man who came to Maine as a refugee in 2009 became radicalized in his Islamic faith while living here and was fighting for the Islamic State when he was killed last year in Lebanon, according to newly unsealed federal court documents.

Adnan Fazeli, 38, most recently of Freeport, came under investigation by the FBI for his connection to the terrorist group shortly after he left his job at Dubai Auto in Portland to fly to Turkey on Aug. 13, 2013, and never returned.

Fazeli, who also went by the names Abu Nawaf and Abu Abdullah Al-Ahwazi, was killed on Jan. 23, 2015, in a battle near Ras Baalbek in Lebanon as part of an Islamic State attack force of about 150 that was thwarted by the Lebanese army.

Those details, which were never revealed publicly before, were contained in an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland last Oct. 27 by Maine State Police Detective George Loder, who was acting as a member of an FBI task force investigating whether other people were aware of Fazeli’s plans to fight for the Islamic State, helped him travel to the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area or supported his efforts there. The affidavit remained under seal during the investigation, which ended with no criminal charges.

The affidavit gives the accounts of four anonymous informants for the FBI who described how Fazeli’s behavior began to change about a year after he came to the Portland area through Catholic Charities Refugee and Immigration Services. They told the FBI that Fazeli frequently watched hours of Islamic videos online, grew a beard and began making anti-American remarks while at an Iraqi market in Portland.

While the informants are not named in the affidavit, Fazeli’s nephew, Ebrahim Fazeli, told the Portland Press Herald on Monday that he informed the FBI about his uncle after Adnan Fazeli called the family from Turkey. The affidavit describes one of the informants as a close relative of Fazeli’s.

“Fazeli’s change in behavior alienated him from many of his Shia and moderate Sunni friends in the area. However, there were a few local Sunnis who supported his fervor and treated him with a great deal of respect. Fazeli started holding occasional religious meetings at his home in Freeport,” Loder said in the affidavit, describing what one informant had said.

Ebrahim Fazeli, 25, said the family was unaware of his uncle’s plans to leave the United States. His uncle had become more religious and grew a substantial beard, but the nephew said no one realized he had become radicalized.

“That wasn’t enough for me to think an educated, smart guy has it in him to join an insane group of people,” said Ebrahim Fazeli, who lives in the Greater Portland area….

Fazeli initially came to the United States as a refugee in 2009, but did not adapt well. He told one informant that he hated Iran because the government was anti-Sunni and felt the United States had done nothing to help. Although Fazeli was raised a Shia Muslim, his family was not devout, one of the informants said. His behavior began to change while in the U.S., and he converted to Wahhabism, an austere form of Sunni Islam….

While Fazeli was abroad, he continued to communicate by Skype chats with at least one of the informants, who later shared videos of the chats with FBI investigators. In one video, Fazeli said that he and his Islamic State allies could kill 1,000 enemies for every 10 of their own killed. In another video, he wore a khaki camouflage military uniform and inquired whether any U.S. government authorities had begun asking questions about him….

Fazeli’s relative called the FBI on Jan. 26, 2015, to report that Fazeli had been killed, according to the affidavit. The same relative emailed a copy of a news article in Arabic from the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar to the FBI on Jan. 28, 2015, that describes how “tens” of ISIS fighters were killed in a clash in Ras Baalbek, a Lebanese Christian town near the Syrian border threatened by both the Islamic State and al-Qaida in Syria. The article listed one of the dead as Abu Abdullah Al-Ahwazi, Fazeli’s other name….

Jalali said Fazeli self-identified as Arab, not Iranian, because he came from the southern and western part of Iran. In Maine, he mingled primarily with Iraqis.

“He talked about enjoying religious freedom here. That’s why I am so shocked,” Jalali said. “He praised this society for its openness.

“How he could go through that transformation, that’s a mystery. That’s quite heartbreaking. It reminds us of the power of social media, brainwashing bright, educated men and turn them into fighters or killers.”…

The medium is not the problem. The message is the problem. This is not a story about the power of social media. It is a story about the power of Islam’s call to jihad.

Also see:

Three Dozen Incidents Chronicle Europe’s Domestic Insurgency: The Week in Review

AP_migrant_europe_01_mm_150904_16x9_992.sized-770x415xb (1)PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, AUGUST 14, 2016:

Last week I reported here at PJ Media on the growing mountain of evidence showing that the European migration crisis is causing flashpoints across the continent. I noted two dozen incidents from the previous seven days revealing the scope of the problem.

Fast-forward a week later and now all indications are that Europe’s domestic insurgency fueled by the massive waves of migrants flooding into EU countries continues to escalate.

My August 3 report here at PJ Media looked at data from the Pew Research Center showing that military-age men represented the bulk of so-called refugees to Europe in 2015. It took nearly a week after my report for the establishment media to pick up on the ramifications of the recently released Pew data:

Europe’s migration crisis remains in the news as migrants and refugees continue to flood the continent:

And as this recounting of incidents from the past week shows, wishful thinking by the European political and media elites is not resolving the problem:

France: Corsica tense after clashes between North Africans and locals over burkini picsUK: Is missing Bradford schoolboy now a jihadist fighter?

Germany: Officials in Hamburg monitoring ‘sharia police’ patrolling city after wave of refugees

Holland: Iraqi man hacks fingers of neighbor off with machete after dispute

Scotland: How Pakistan inspired Glasgow shopkeeper killer after perceived insult to Mohammad

Scotland: Supporters shout “praise for the prophet Muhammad as Muslim ‘blasphemy’ killer is sentenced

Denmark: Iranian asylum seeker threatens bombing of refugee center where he was staying

Germany: After four Islamist attacks authorities racing to figure out how to help youth before they radicalize

UK: British man convicted of making offensive comments about Muslims on Facebook

France: Police warn jihadi terrorists could be hiding in Britain-bound refugees in Calais

Greece: Yazidis targeted for genocide by ISIS being persecuted in refugee camps

Sweden: Somali migrant who stabbed asylum worker to death sentenced to psychiatric care

Italy: Milan overrun by ‘invasion’ of thousands of immigrants

Germany: Police arrest Syrian refugee after tip he was planning ‘Islamist-inspired attack’

Belgium: Manhunt for jihadi teen who called for extermination of Christians

Switzerland: Rise in number of child victims of forced marriage

Hungary: 3000 extra police dispatched to help protect border

UK: Home Office guidelines say Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members qualify for asylum

France: Teen cleared of being ‘third man’ in Charlie Hebdo attack arrested for trying to join ISIS

Belgium: Algerian man who stabbed two Charleroi police officers wasn’t deported despite two deportation orders

Holland: Two Turkish men assaulted by Erdogan supporters in Amsterdam

UK: London schoolgirl turned ‘jihadi bride’ killed in Syrian airstrike

Austria: Authorities see rise in attacks by asylum seekers

Belgium: Liege neighborhood on lockdown after man of ‘Turkish origin’ roams streets with machete day after terror attack

Germany: Federal chief of domestic intelligence says Islamists use refugee camps for recruitment, 340+ cases so far

Italy: Tunisian national deported after planning bombing attack on Leaning Tower of Pisa

France: Terrifying moment Calais migrants ambush British van driver with metal bars

Germany: Video of migrants clashing with police in Berlin goes viral

UK: Prime Minister May allowed terror suspect wanted in two bombings in India and killing of schoolgirl to remain in country

Sweden: Summer inferno of sexual assaults, almost all coming from Afghanistan, Eritrean and Somali refugees

Belgium: Police arrest three new terror suspects during raids in Brussels

Germany: Intelligence warns of ISIS hit squads among refugees

UK: Election fraud in Muslim-majority areas of London becoming a problem aided by political correctness, report claims

Sweden: Eight immigrants convicted of murder in restaurant attack, tried to kill 25

Italy: Pro-migrant group calls off rally after weapons found on protesters

France: Malian expelled on suspected jihadist links, 81 such expulsions since 2012

UK: Imams using prisons to radicalize recruits

Needless to say, Europeans aren’t taking comfort in assurances by their politicians that the problem is being handled…

Read more

German Intel: ISIS Hit Squads Entering Europe Disguised as Syrian Refugees

godblesshitler

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug.12, 2016:

For months experts and the media insisted that it was inconceivable and impossible for Muslim terrorists to enter Europe or America by pretending to be Syrian refugees. Now it’s just a fact of life. That’s the way it usually is with the left. The disastrous outcomes of their policies are denied and then they’re just a reality that we’re expected to cope with.

German intelligence services have evidence that “hit squads” from the Islamic State terror group have infiltrated the country disguised as refugees, the deputy head of Bavaria’s spy agency told the BBC Thursday.

“We have to accept that we have hit squads and sleeper cells in Germany,” Manfred Hauser, the vice president of the Bavaria region’s intelligence gathering agency, BayLfV, told the Today program.

“We have substantial reports that among the refugees there are hit squads. There are hundreds of these reports, some from refugees themselves. We are still following up on these, and we haven’t investigated all of them fully,” said Hauser.

Why do we have to accept them? Because we keep accepting Muslim migrants who claim to be refugees. We have to keep eating the whole bowl of candy wondering which of the pieces is poisoned.

***

151005_ard_bericht_aus_berlin_merkel_burka

Why Germany’s New Anti-Terror Rollout is Worthless by Daniel Greenfield

Even after the wave of Muslim migrant violence, including over a thousand New Year’s Eve sexual assaults and multiple plots and acts of terror, Merkel madly insisted on maintaining the migrant crisis. And now her government tried to put on a little show.

The German government is planning a host of new security measures in the wake of a few violent incidents in Würzburg, Ansbach and Munich. The measures include an increase in police personnel, a central crime unit for pursuing crime on the internet, easier deportation for migrants who have committed crimes, and depriving Germans who join foreign “terror militias” of their citizenship.

“I am convinced that these proposals will increase security quickly,” Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters in a special press conference in Berlin on Thursday, before adding that all the proposals could be implemented in this legislative period, which ends next fall.

It’s of course the deportations that matter and leave it to the Greens to explain why that’s an empty production playing to a full house.

Volker Beck said de Maiziere’s plans would do little to increase security. In a statement, the Green party’s migration spokesman dismissed threatening jihadists with losing their German citizenship as “despairing politicking.”

And Beck added that speeding up deportations was not as easy as de Maiziere suggested, not least because many refugees do not have valid papers. “The fact is that not a few embassies simply refuse to issue passports for those affected,” he said. “Accusations and tightening residency laws makes precious little difference. We’d be better advised to give all people whose deportations are impossible for actual reasons the prospect of staying.”

Sure. Let’s give the terrorists a reason to stay. But Beck isn’t wrong about the facts. Until Germany, and for that matter America, cease relying on mutual cooperation for deportations, such measures are a joke. Try deporting a Syrian. Or for that matter, in the US, a Haitian.

De Maiziere resisted calls from state interior ministers – and also members of his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – to ban the face-covering Islamic dress the burqa in Germany. He called the idea “constitutionally problematic” and added: “You can’t ban everything you oppose, and I oppose the wearing of a burqa.”

But they can ban criticism of Islam.

***

Also see:

Report: British Authorities Still Ignoring Massive Pakistani-Led Child Sex Ring

rotherhamWhy bother rescuing thousands of children from rape if it might mean enduring claims of anti-Muslim racism?

The Federalist, by M. G. Oprea Aug. 10, 2016:

A new investigation by the Daily Express has found that the massive Rotherham child sex exploitation ring whose discovery rocked England two years ago is not only still in operation, but is as strong as ever. Reports from social workers, police, residents, and abuse victims all said the same thing: It’s still happening on an “industrial scale.”

In 2014, an independent inquiry led by Alexis Jay, a former senior social worker, found that men of Pakistani origin had groomed at least 1,400 young girls for sexual exploitation over the previous 16 years. These girls, as young as 12, were variously raped, abducted, tortured, and forced into prostitution. Keep in mind, this happened—and is still happening—in the heart of England, not some far-flung banana republic.

The report, known as the Jay Report, found “blatant” failure by city officials and police who didn’t prosecute the well-known and well-documented crime ring out of fear of being accused of racism. So they hushed it up, ignored it, and blamed the victims themselves.

It now appears that, two years and millions of pounds later, little has been done to eradicate the predatory operation. Despite a follow-up report published earlier this year claiming that the sexual exploitation was being addressed “adequately” and that previous failures were “isolated” events, people the Daily Express interviewed paint a very different picture.

Sex Trafficking Rings Across England

A former social worker who works with the victims said there has been a slight improvement in the city but that the scale of the sexual exploitation is still on an “industrial” level. A lawyer who has represented dozens of the young girls involved added that there are now half a dozen “splinter groups” in the town grooming under-aged girls.

This same lawyer is convinced that similar abuse is going on in towns across England, and that local police aren’t taking parents seriously, just they didn’t in Rotherham for years. This is corroborated by reports that authorities have arrested or prosecuted men, mainly of Pakistani origin, operating similar sex rings in 11 towns in England.

This new development raises a number of concerns, one of which is whether authorities continue their inaction from fear of being accused of racism for going after these groups of predominately Pakistani men. One victim who was interviewed by the Daily Express said she knew several other girls who had gone to the police and were told they were being racist.

More Important: Ending Rape or Ending Whining?

It wouldn’t be surprising if this fear were still motivating officials. In 2015, the group British Muslim Youth called on Muslims in Rotherham to cut ties with the police because, they claimed, all Muslims were being painted with the same brush. The Muslim community would “boycott” Muslims who didn’t join with them. According to the BMY, Islamaphobia had risen to “unprecedented levels” after the Jay report was published in 2014, and Muslims were being “demonized.”

It’s entirely possible that Muslims in general took some unfair heat after a scandal like this. But that doesn’t mean the government and police don’t have a solemn responsibility to speak plainly about and take seriously allegations of criminal activity, regardless of the suspects’ profile.

This line of reasoning always creeps up when criticism of Muslims or Islam arises. Try to talk about the dangers of Islamism and its clear link to terrorism, or the consequences of mass Muslim immigration, and one is liable to be branded a bigot and told one’s making the problem worse by encouraging a backlash against the Muslim community.

The London Times, which first broke the story of one of the victims and her abusers in 2013, was subsequently accused of being racist because it implicated Pakistani men in the scandal. This confirmed the fears of some Rotherham officials that many would not welcome prosecutions and arrests of Pakistanis. These kinds of overreactions from Muslim activists are exactly what scares police and government officials, discouraging them from investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by their Muslim immigrant population.

This Is a Widespread Problem

It isn’t just happening in Britain. The same phenomenon can be seen across the European continent. German officials repeatedly tried to cover up the mass sexual assaults that occurred on New Year’s Eve in cities across the country. First, they tried to keep what had happened out of the news, then insisted it had nothing to do with migrants or men from Muslim-majority countries. When it finally came out that the attackers were, in fact, predominately from the Middle East and North Africa, German officials tried to downplay the extent of the attacks. To the German government’s chagrin, news broke just last month that there were many more assaults than previously thought—more than 1,200 victims and more than 2,000 attackers.

We can get an insight into the motivations behind these kinds of official cover-ups by looking at a less well-known example. In January, a left-wing German politician was raped in a playground by three men speaking Arabic or Farsi. When she reported the crime to the police, she lied and said the men were speaking German. Twelve hours later she went back and told the truth, claiming she hadn’t wanted to create “more hatred against migrants in Germany.”

In all these cases, the truth didn’t conform with the official narrative about Muslim immigration: that everything’s going swimmingly. In reality, the unwillingness of the government, politicians, and police to confront crime committed by the Muslim immigrant population is a sign that Europe has a deep and troubling integration crisis on its hands. Europe can’t integrate immigrants if it doesn’t hold them to the same standards as the native European population.

Equality Under the Law Matters

There are ominous signs this failure of integration is being transferred to the younger generation of immigrants. In the Rotherham case, it appears that it’s no longer just older Pakistani men who are targeting these young girls. It’s now also the girls’ peers.

If European law enforcement agencies give immigrants from Muslim countries special treatment, the consequences on all fronts will only be harmful. It will fuel far-right groups, allow crime to go unchecked, and create more strife between Muslims and non-Muslims. It also infantilizes Muslim communities by treating them as too fragile to be held to the social and legal expectations of their new home.

This failure of integration has been going on for decades and is now reaching a fevered pitch. Europe sowed these seeds of discord long ago and now it’s seeing the fruits. Many immigrants and their families have done just fine in Europe. But as we’re seeing almost weekly, many have not.

Rotherham is a particular disgrace because it shows that once again multiculturalism trumps everything, including the safety of young girls. The shocking revelations about Rotherham two years ago should have resulted in a final repudiation of European political correctness. Sadly, it didn’t. And some of England’s most vulnerable residents are paying the price.

Racism, not Refugee Rape, Is Causing Agitation in Twin Falls, Claims Local TV Outlet

Screen-Shot-2016-08-07-at-11.48.47-PM-640x480

Breitbart, by  MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY, Aug. 7, 2016:

White racism, not a June 2 videotaped rape by refugees from strife-torn tribal cultures, is causing the growing civic protest in Twin Falls, Idaho, according to KMVT, the main local TV station.

The pitch was delivered with the help of Nancy Taylor, who is a local advocate for greater immigration.

I believe that there is a very small group in Twin Falls, very small and vocal, who, for lack of a better word, are racist … A little girl was assaulted, and just because people of color are involved, it becomes an issue. Unfortunately, children in this community are victims of crime every day, why isn’t that an outrage?

The racism-not-rape claim was the main theme of KMVT’s  report on the press conference by a local civic group known as “We the People Magic Valley.”

They held their press conference on Friday to highlight the civic costs of the inflow of foreign labor into the town, and to ask Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton “to come to Twin Falls and see how America is being changed by this new crisis.”

The uproar began June 2, when a five-year-old American-born girl was allegedly raped by two small refugee boys in Twin Falls, Idaho, while a third boy, also a Muslim refugee,video-taped the attack. The details of the alleged attack are gruesome:

As Breitbart News previously reported, ten-year-old and seven-year-old Muslims allegedly orally raped the the victim, and the ten-year-old suspect allegedly anally raped her as well. Another alleged perpetrator recorded the attack while coaching them throughout the rape. The rapists also defiled their victim by urinating on her clothes and in her mouth.

But the low-wage refugees are a profitable portion of the local labor force — and also are a growing slice of local consumers — so the local business and political establishment is eager to downplay the impact of refugee labor on Americans’ wages and neighborhoods. In Twin Falls, Mayor Shawn Bariger, who’s handling of the alleged sexual assault has been questioned by local activist groups, is also president of the Twin Falls Area Chamber of Commerce.

KMVT is owned by Gray Television, which owns or operates  77 television stations in 44 small markets.

KMVT ignored the message presented by the group at the press conference and focused on whether the group is “racist.”

That skew ensured that KMVT’s reporting on the press conference is “one of the most blatant examples of pro-refugee, anti-American bias I’ve seen to date in the media,” said Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch. She’s an expert on the lucrative refugee resettlement industry.

“When a news media outlet fails to report what an organization holding a press conference actually says at that event, you really have to question if they are an objective reporter of actual news, or if they are instead simply a propaganda outlet for the powerful refugee resettlement industry and its local business allies,” Corcoran says.

“Is the rule of law being applied fairly in this case of alleged sexual assault of a 5-year-old American-born girl by three young boys, all reportedly refugees?” she asks.

“Or, is this girl being denied her rights as a victim and are the alleged perpetrators being protected by the local legal and political system because they are refugees and therefore have superior rights to the girl?  Because to prosecute them to the full extent of the law would harm the existing relationship with resettled refugees that benefits the members of the local political and business establishment?” Corcoran concludes.

The message KMVT failed to report on was substantive and directly relevant to a critical public issue facing the entire country.

“This attack has gotten national attention for a reason. Because it deals with issues that are hot topics for Americans,” one member of the group said at the press conference.

“People are being treated unfairly in their own country and held to a different standard,”another member of the group said, adding:

Refugees have been flooding into Twin Falls as cheap labor, for the food industry, including the food-processing industry. Local employers are given financial incentives not to hire Americans, but to hire refugees instead. The federal government has also gotten involved by providing incentives for both the companies and city officials.

The attack that happened to this delicate, little, five-year-old girl is one of the unforeseen consequences that are changing the make-up of our country, causing wages to stagnate, and creating a situation that is bad for everyone. Worst of all, the changes that have been transforming America haven’t been debated or discussed in media. Political correctness, and self-interested politicians and businessmen have allowed this to happen without engaging citizens in these policies.

KMVT did not report at all on the message the group delivered. Instead, it went into the press conference with an agenda, clearly visible in the way it began its report:

Nancy Taylor works closely with refugees in the Magic Valley.

“I can’t tell you how many wonderful refugees that we have here,” Taylor said. “Absolutely amazing. And I’ve met a lot, and they are not what people think they are.”

Not everyone shares her opinion on the refugees, though.

“I believe that there is a very small group in Twin Falls, very small and vocal, who, for lack of a better word, are racist,” [Taylor] said. . .

“A little girl was assaulted, and just because people of color are involved, it becomes an issue,” Taylor said. “Unfortunately, children in this community are victims of crime every day, why isn’t that an outrage?”

The written version of the KMVT report failed to disclose Taylor is a “refugee advocate.”

In fact, Taylor is apparently part of a group known as Magic Valley Refugee Advocates which has a Facebook page that shares news releases from the College of Southern Idaho Refugee Program.

That program is the local affiliate of the politically powerful U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigration (USCRI), a leading voluntary agency [VOLAG] in the billion dollar refugee resettlement industry funded almost exclusively by the federal government.

As Breitbart News reported previously, USCRI is headed by Lavinia Limon, who has made her career helping migrants settle in the United States. She was appointed director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and has been a leader in the movement to create “new American communities” of migrant blocs within American neighborhoods.

Read more

Lee Stranahan explains the whole story in the context of the Refugee Resettlement program  racket:

 

Breitbart has been covering this incredible story from the beginning. See it all here:

Tag: Twin Falls Idaho sexual assault