Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton and Islamic refugees’ category

INTO THE FRAY:The elections are for President—not Pope

November 4, 2016

INTO THE FRAY:The elections are for President—not Pope, Israel National News, Dr. Martin Sherman, November 4, 2016

(The article seems principally directed to Never Trumpers. –DM)

The election next week of Clinton, who is firmly committed, indeed virtually compelled, to continue with Obama policies is more than likely to make that course irretrievable, and the US—much like several luckless EU countries—will be set on an inevitable downward spiral toward third-world status…from which a growing portion of its population hoped to extricate itself

Given the stakes, this seems almost inconceivable. Trump should be elected not because of what may occur if he is, but because of what will almost certainly occur if he is not. He should not be judged on what his incumbency might achieve, but what his incumbency must prevent.

So in weighing the grim alternatives, the US electorate would do well to bear in mind that these elections are for the Presidency not the Papacy.  They must choose who is best suited (or the least unsuited) to be President – not the Pope.

*********************

You knooow…C’mon Who do you think is out of touch?– Barack Obama, commenting derisively on Hillary Clinton, 2008

“Hillary Clinton, she’ll say anything and change nothing” – I am Barack Obama…and I approve this messageFrom a 2008 Obama election campaign ad.

The fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering and you…are going to have to make sure that we push it in the right direction.– Barack Obama, urging voters to support Hillary Clinton, November 3, 2016

It would, indeed, be in no way an exaggeration to describe next week’s US elections as perhaps the most significant in recent history, a  real “fork in the road” for the future of the over 200-hundred year Union.

Waning adherence to founding principles?

This Union proved to be a remarkable socio-political creation. Largely because of its founding values, as articulated in its founding documents and later amendment’s, it developed into the most influential, prosperous powerful country on the planet.

Indeed, in great measure, by holding fast to those values, it managed to maintain its position of primacy since the early decades of the last century.

But in the last decade this began to change perceptibly. Adherence to the underlying fundamentals–its Anglo-Saxon cultural roots and its Judeo-Christian (indeed Judeo-Protestant) ethical foundations—has begun to wane.  Identification with, and belief in, what made America, America began to erode and fray—and with it, the coherence of the identity that made it exceptional.

Clearly, it was not America’s natural resources and mineral wealth that generated its unparalleled success. After all, numerous other countries have been endowed by nature with vast riches but none of them were able to harness the enormous creativity and productive energy of their population on a similar scale/intensity as America did.

What set America apart was the manner in which it managed to mobilize its human resources and facilitate opportunity for talent, ingenuity and industry to flower.

There is no way to decouple this remarkable accomplishment from the original organizing principles set out for the nation at its founding. Similarly, there is no way to decouple these organizing principles from the civilizational foundations from which they were drawn.

Clearly then, as America of today diverges increasingly from identification with those principles and civilizational foundations, and the spirit that they were imbued with, it will increasingly jeopardize the key to its own exceptionalism—and the exceptional achievement that accompanied it.

Diversity is strength, but diffusion is weakness

Of course I can already hear the howls of outraged indignation that this kind of talk borders on bigotry, and reflects gross ignorance as to sources of American strength and success. They will, no doubt, point to the enormous contributions made by immigrants, who hailed from civilizational backgrounds far removed from any traces of Judeo-Protestant influence—from East Asia to Latin America.  They will of course recite the worn-out mantra that “diversity is strength” and underscore how Americans of Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic and other origins have all been part of the American success story.

This is all entirely true—and equally irrelevant to the point being made. For it was only in the environment created by the unique societal foundations of America, and the opportunities it afforded, that allowed the immigrants, drawn to its shores from other socio-cultural settings, to blossom.  After all, if this was not the case, why would they leave their countries of origin?

So, as long as these foundations remained the dominant determinant of societal realities in America, the country could continue to absorb productive forces from other societal backgrounds, without jeopardizing the sustainability of its past success.

This, however, is not the case when large bodies of immigrants flow into the country and wish to establish communities which retain—indeed, actively sustain—much of what they left behind in their countries of origin, and which, presumably, comprised much of the motivation for them to leave.

It is then that dynamic diversity begins its decline into dysfunctional diffusion.
Tolerance vs self-abnegation

To illustrate the point somewhat simplistically: It is one thing if a Mexican immigrant arrives in the US, integrates into American society and becomes a productive American. It is quite another, if waves of Mexican immigrants arrive in America and transform significant parts of it into Mexico.

Thus, when immigrants from diverse socio-ethnic backgrounds blend into the dominant culture, the result might well be a synergetic outcome beneficial to both.  But this is unlikely when largely discordant immigrant cultures begin to impose themselves on the dominant host culture, which begins to forego important parts of its identity for fear of “offending” new comers, who were attracted to it precisely because of what that dominant culture offered them.

Accordingly, while tolerance of diverse minorities is clearly enlightened self-interest, self-abnegation to accommodate discordant minority predilections is, no less clearly, a detrimental denial of self-worth.

What has all this to do with the upcoming elections on Tuesday?

Well, a great deal! Indeed, in many ways it lies at the heart of the decision for whom to cast one’s ballot. It not only separates out sharply between the two candidates’ declared platforms and campaign pronouncements, but more profoundly–-far more profoundly—it separates out between their prospective constituencies and the long-term vested interests of the respective political Establishments that support them.

Real “fork in the road”

Accordingly, one does not require advanced degrees in political science to grasp just how the relevant political landscape lies as the crucial ballot approaches.

It is beyond dispute that, because of the demographic composition of its support base, any Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton included, will be exceedingly loath to curtail significant influxes of largely unregulated and un-vetted immigrants from the Mid-East, Latin America and elsewhere. For this reluctance will clearly find favor with many of her current constituents and prospective new ones – particularly in light of the astounding electoral practice in the US which requires no photo ID to allow one to choose who will have access to the nation’s nuclear codes—while such identification is obligatory for a myriad of other far less significant purposes.

By contrast, whether or not one lends credence to Donald Trump’s strident declarations on severe restrictions he plans to impose on immigration across the county’s southern border and from Muslim countries, it is clearly very much in his political interest to act along such lines—since this will deny his adversaries the potential expansion of their political base.

So those, then, are the real stakes in these elections – the real “fork in the road”: A choice between a candidate, whose vested political interests induce her to permit changes that will permanently alter the character and composition of America, or one whose political interests compel him to resist this.

The elections as “damage control”

In many ways—most of them, regrettable—these are elections that are significantly different from virtually all previous ones.

Indeed, there is unprecedented dissatisfaction with—even, disapproval of—both candidates.

Thus, Clinton is hardly an ideal candidate—even for Clinton supporters; and Trump far from an ideal candidate—even for Clinton opponents.

Accordingly, far more than a choice of whom to vote for, these elections will be dominantly a choice of whom not to vote for.  They will be far less a process that determines whom the voters want to ensconce in the White House, and far more about whom they want prevented from being ensconced in it.

Thus, rather than what they hope their preferred candidate can do for the country, their ballot will be determined by what they fear the other candidate will do to the country.

In this sense, these elections are largely an exercise in damage control.

Or at least that is what it should be: A choice, foisted on a largely dismayed electorate, to install the candidate least likely to be able to inflict irreparable damage on the Republic, until American democracy can somehow recover and offer the voter a more appealing selection of candidates in the future.

A relatively simple choice

In this respect, the choice ought to be relatively simple. For regardless of what one might believe as to what either candidate has in his/ her heart, it is clearly Trump who has a greater interest in keeping America American; while Clinton has a vested interest in endorsing the burgeoning inflow of immigrants, who, rather than embrace the founding values of America, are liable to exploit them to change the face of US society beyond recognition.

Indeed, one should be bear in mind that there is nothing “universal” about the noble values on which America was founded and evolved. Quite the opposite. After all, the spirit of liberty and tolerance they reflect are not the hallmarks of many—perhaps even most—of the countries around the globe.  So, unless these values are diligently preserved, they could well be mortally undermined.

It is difficult to think of anything that could undermine the values of a society more fundamentally than the massive influx of largely unregulated un-vetted newcomers, for whom those values are not only foreign, but often antithetical, to those of the countries of origin—something countries like Sweden and Germany have sadly discovered to their great detriment.

But that, of course, is precisely what should be expected if Clinton wins. It would require hefty doses of unbounded, and largely unfounded, optimism to expect any outcome other than increasingly severe erosion of societal values that have defined America in the past.

Specter of irretrievable change

But it is not only the structural bias of Clinton’s political interests that makes her potentially the more permanently damaging incumbent to the character of the American Republic, but also her ability to do so. For, as a seasoned politician, well-versed in the corridors of governmental power and machinations of the political Establishment, she has far greater capacity and reach to ensure that her ill-conceived and detrimental policies are implemented and durably entrenched, than the inexperienced maverick novice Trump. After all, he would undoubtedly require many months “learning the ropes”, before he manages to implement and entrench any allegedly injurious policies that perturb his detractors.

As I wrote in last week’s column, the 2009 Obama administration set a course for America substantially different from those set by his predecessors, and in important ways highly discordant with them. Obama’s 2012 reelection helped solidify the anomalous (the less charitable might say “perverse”) change in direction along which he took the nation.

The election next week of Clinton, who is firmly committed, indeed virtually compelled, to continue with Obama policies is more than likely to make that course irretrievable, and the US—much like several luckless EU countries—will be set on an inevitable downward spiral toward third-world status…from which a growing portion of its population hoped to extricate itself

Obama is right—but Obama is wrong

So President Obama was right when he declared at a North Carolina rally (November 3, 2016): “The fate of the republic rests on your [the voters] shoulders…The fate of the world is teetering…” For these elections will indeed have momentous consequences both for the US and across the world. He is, however entirely mistaken as to the direction in which he urges them “to make sure…we push it” (See introductory excerpt)

Sadly, however, despite the fact that these are likely to be the most consequential elections in modern history, it appears (if the conduct of the campaign is to be any guideline) that they may well be decided because of the most inconsequential reasons. For it seems, it will not be the strategic direction in which the country will be taken that will determine the outcome, but rumors and innuendo as to the  character defects of Trump and his alleged crude indiscretions with women.

Given the stakes, this seems almost inconceivable. Trump should be elected not because of what may occur if he is, but because of what will almost certainly occur if he is not. He should not be judged on what his incumbency might achieve, but what his incumbency must prevent.

So in weighing the grim alternatives, the US electorate would do well to bear in mind that these elections are for the Presidency not the Papacy.  They must choose who is best suited (or the least unsuited) to be President – not the Pope.

Massive Flood of New Immigrants from Muslim Nations

October 12, 2016

Massive Flood of New Immigrants from Muslim Nations, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, October 12, 2016

hilltsunami

The Washington Examiner reported last week that “at 42.4 million, there are now more immigrants, legal and illegal, in America than ever before, fueled by a massive flood from Muslim nations….And while the doors remain open on the U.S.-Mexico border, the biggest percentage increases in immigration are all from largely Muslim nations.” What could possibly go wrong? Hillary Clinton knows, as she revealed in a 2013 email that makes her current public position on immigration absolutely inexplicable.

The Examiner added that according to Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler of the Center for Immigration Studies: “The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in immigrants living in the United States from 2010 to 2014 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent), Bangladesh (up 37 percent), Iraq (up 36 percent), Egypt (up 25 percent), and Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (each up 24 percent).”

Hillary Clinton, despite her determination to increase the number of Syrian refugees entering the United States by 550%, knows very well the risks involved in this massive influx of Muslim immigrants, and in her scheme to increase their number even more. The Daily Caller reported Monday that “in a private 2013 speech, Hillary Clinton worried about the risk of ‘jihadists’ entering Jordan with ‘legitimate refugees’ because ‘they can’t possibly vet all those refugees.’”

Clinton said in a speech before the Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago: “So I think you’re right to have gone to the places that you visited because there’s a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism, and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it’s on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can’t possibly vet all those refugees. So they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason.”

Clinton vowed during her second presidential debate with Donald Trump: “I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” So she apparently believes that while Jordan and Turkey cannot vet the refugees and winnow out the jihadis from among peaceful Muslims, the United States government under a Hillary Clinton administration will be able to do so.

This is an extraordinary claim: two Muslim nations are unable to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, but a non-Muslim nation will be able to do so? Hillary Clinton could only advance such a proposition in a world in which non-Muslim spokesmen such as John Kerry, David Cameron and Pope Francis pronounce confidently and authoritatively on the nature of Islam, blithely contradicting Islamic law and theological consensus, as well as the closely-argued Qur’anic exegeses of numerous jihad leaders, in telling us that Islam is a religion of peace that rejects every form of violence. Clinton herself has declared: “Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Since she is so sure that she knows all about Islam and Muslims, Clinton is doubtless sure that she will be able to ensure that U.S. immigration and refugee authorities “will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us.” Yet when she makes statements so divorced from reality as her claim that Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that those whom she thinks pose a risk to us will be those who actually do pose a risk to us.

Even worse, when as far back as three years ago, she indicated that she had some idea of the difficulty even for Muslim countries to vet the refugees properly, her advocacy of a steep increase in Muslim immigration is, at very least, astonishingly irresponsible. Her position appears to be based on a toxic combination of willful ignorance and hubris – toxic not for her presidential chances, but for the possibility that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the United States.

Dr. Jasser discusses Wikileaks HRC speech email dump and the refugee double standard

October 11, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses Wikileaks HRC speech email dump and the refugee double standard, AIFD via YouTube, October 11, 2016

(Please see also, Clinton Warned That Jordan Couldn’t Vet Refugees and Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells” — DM)

Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells”

October 11, 2016

Clinton campaign emails: blacks and Muslims are “professional never-do-wells”, Creeping Sharia, October 11, 2016

From last weekend’s Wikileaks release of Hillary Clinton emails. 

Source: WIKILEAKS

What makes for successful immigration?

It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.

Screenshot below:

hillary-never-do-wells

In a separate email to Clinton’s campaign chief:

From:orca100@upcmail.nl To: podesta@law.georgetown.edu Date: 2016-02-21 00:51

Subject: Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans

Muslim Immigration and Multicultural Madness have left a trail of misery and mayhem across Germany – with far worse to come because of demographics · Muslims make up only 9% of Berlin’s population, yet account for 70% of young repeat criminals, revealed Berlin public prosecutor Roman Reusch http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-51448987.html. To be more precise, 46% of Berlin’s juvenile serial criminals are of Arab descent, while 33% of them have Turkish ancestry

Muslim immigration is just one long tale of woe and misery for the long-suffering host countries, which are in for far worse to come in the decades ahead because of barely understood demographic realities. Incidentally, the same sad observation can be made of the Black Diaspora in Western Europe, North America, Latin America and the Caribbean (see previous statistics-packed emails and upcoming info – you have yet to receive these!).


More examples this morning:

Hillary In Leaked Email: Saudi Arabia And Qatar Are Funding ISIS

Leaked Emails Expose Tight Link Between CNBC And Clinton Campaign

Clinton Warned That Jordan Couldn’t Vet Refugees

October 11, 2016

Clinton Warned That Jordan Couldn’t Vet Refugees, Clarion Project, October 11, 2016

clintononvettingHillary Clinton. (Photo: © Getty Images)

Jordan cannot possibly adequately vet all the refugees who come into the country, Democratic nominee for President Hillary Clinton said in a paid speech in 2013. Jordan “can’t possibly vet all those [Syrian] refugees,” Clinton told the  Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago, “so they don’t know if … jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.”

This contrasts with her more recent position that the “tough vetting” of refugees “is a serious challenge, [but] we are well-equipped to meet it, and we can do so in keeping with smart law enforcement, good intelligence and in concert with our values,” as she said in a September 19 speech.

Her 2013 remarks were revealed in a Wikileaks dump and picked up by the conservative media outlet Breitbart.

Over the past year, 62 people have either launched Islamic State-linked terrorist attacks in the United States or have been accused of plotting in support of the terrorist group, according to analysis by the Daily Mail. Small minorities of those were immigrants and only six were refugees.

In total, 64 people were killed and 121 wounded in different attacks.

The U.S. selects migrants based on need and does not ask them about their views on issues relating to extremism, although it does emphasize that the U.S. is a country of laws and that those laws must be obeyed. These policies were explained to Congress in a hearing by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migrants Simon Henshaw.

Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign

October 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign, Israel National News, Lee Kaplan, October 6, 2016

President Harry Truman once said that any politician who became wealthy as a result of being in public service was a crook. As the American presidential election looms near, Hillary Clinton is showing the former president’s statement to be true.

On leaving the White House at the end of her husband’s presidency, Hillary Clinton cried poverty. Yet today, after her stint in Congress and as the U.S. Secretary of State, her net worth is in excess of 100 billion dollars. To this day Mrs. Clinton has not openly told the truth about where all the money is coming from. Most of this largesse is the result of donations from foreign dictators (notably the Gulf Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to which these dictators belong.

What is the OIC?

It is a consortium of the Gulf Sheiks that also became a part of the United Nations. One of its key purposes of late is to try and have blasphemy laws created in the West and worldwide when criticism of Islam is voiced. It is also designed to get the Gulf Sheiks whatever they want from pusillanimous diplomats in the West.

The crux of the matter is how Hillary Clinton criticizes her presidential opponent by trying to suggest he is xenophobic, or more specifically “islamophobic” ( a silly term touted and promoted by UC Berkeley Hamas apparatchik Hatem Bazian, who also called for an “intifada” in America).  She says this is anathema to her humanitarian concern for Syrian refugees with which she wants to flood American shores.

Whereas Barack Obama brought in 10,000 such refugees and seeks to double the numbers, Ms. Clinton insists she wants this number increased to 550,000 or possibly even 600,000. Voters should note not only the fact that such a large number is bound to have many more refugees who are not vetted for security purposes – as is already being discussed in the Press. In fact, her insistence on these increased numbers is a glaring example of her engaging in “Pay for Play”:

The OIC pays her and she promises them she will absorb the refugees so OIC member nations won’t have to do it.

And one doesn’t need a deleted email to see this. To date, not one Gulf sheikh who donated to her foundation has offered to take in even one Syrian refugee. The Saudis, incredibly, have housing and bedding for three million refugees in their country. Originally created to house visitors for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca every year, these domiciles have air conditioning, running water and all the facilities to take in more than the 600,000 refugees that Hillary is proposing.

But that might interfere with the solid gold faucets planned for the next palace. Just as American boys can die to save Kuwait, so to can the American taxpayer absorb the flotsam and jetsam of the Arab world.

As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a state department that somehow lost 3 billion dollars in tax dollars that are unaccounted for according to the GAO, that spent other tax dollars on building mosques overseas through USAID, that funds UNWRA “camps” where Palestinian children are taught they are to be the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists, and that pays salaries to convicted terrorist murderers in Israel jails. Those salaries are sometimes greater than many Americans earn. USAID also funds 100% of Palestinian television that incites Arabs to murder the Jews.

In fairness, many of these things were started under the Bush administration, but just as many others were started or propagated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

As Secretary of State she could have stopped much of this, but she chose not to do so. She let the Arab world indirectly have the US as a piggy bank for totalitarians, letting the Saudis fund world terrorism and rule the roost in Washington. All of this was part of “Pay for Play” as she solicited funds from the Sheikhs for her foundation.

One campaign clip had Clinton saying “We must not insult Islam!”  This was spoken like a true IOC campaigner and an example of a politician pandering to her money source. As terrorist attacks come to the U.S. in St. Cloud, in Phoenix and New York, we can hear Hillary carrying on about how the US must swallow up 600,000 more Muslim refugees – because she must have promised this to the Shieikhs. That’s real play for the pay.

Every one of those Syrian refugees will cost the US taxpayer dearly as well. They will require government health care that we can ill afford, plus food, education and other benefits. Even those who have no terrorists connections will bring with them anti-Semitism and a support ideology that will promote the Sheikhs and other totalitarian enemies of the United States, just as President Obama has done in surrendering nuclear control over Iran. Remember – Hillary presided over that one too. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton will be paying back her funders at the expense of the American taxpayer as billions pour into her foundation in the form of funds that she can ultimately draw on, starting with daughter Chelsea.

Harry Truman obviously knew what he was talking about.

 

Clinton Names Mother of the Migrant Crisis Merkel As Favourite World Leader

September 30, 2016

Clinton Names Mother of the Migrant Crisis Merkel As Favourite World Leader, BreitbartOliver JJ Lane, September 30, 2016

WASHINGTON - JUNE 7: (L-R) German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden toast each other during a luncheon at the US State Department June 7, 2011 in Washington, DC. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden hosted German Chancellor Angela Merkel for a luncheon during her visit to Washington before tonight's State Dinner. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON – JUNE 7: (L-R) German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Joseph R. Biden toast each other during a luncheon at the US State Department June 7, 2011 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has named German Chancellor Angela Merkel as her favourite world leader, choosing specifically to praise her record on the migrant crisis — despite her policies on opening Europe’s borders now providing a source of immense regret for her party and Germany.

The comments were made during a question and answer session on board Mrs. Clinton’s campaign aeroplane in Chicago yesterday, when a member of the press asked what the presidential candidate’s favourite world leader is. Initially leaving her answer quite open, remarking: “Look, I like a lot of the world leaders”, Mrs. Clinton then settled on Germany’s imperiled Chancellor Angela Merkel.

She told members of the press: “One of my favorites is Angela Merkel because I think she’s been an extraordinary, strong leader during difficult times in Europe, which has obvious implications for the rest of the world and, most particularly, our country”, reports Politico.

Turning episodes in Merkel’s career which are among the most damaging to her reputation into positives, the would-be president continued: “Her leadership and steadiness on the Euro crisis and her bravery in the face of the refugee crisis is something that I am impressed by.

“I’ve known her for a long time, she and I have known each other back to the 1990s, I’ve spent a lot of time with her. And I hope I’ll have the opportunity to work with her in the future.”

Clinton’s specific highlighting of Merkel’s handling of the migrant crisis — a major political and social upheaval across Europe for which she can claim more responsibility for than perhaps any other world leader — may cause concern, given Clinton’s own position on mass migration.

A promise to welcome Syrian refugees to the United States made headlines earlier this year when she vowed to increase the number of Syrian migrants admitted by 550 per cent. The propensity for Mrs. Clinton to go big on immigration to the United States and her similarities to Angela Merkel were noted by Breitbart London editor in chief Raheem Kassam in January when he told radio host Sean Hannity: “[Merkel] brought in 1.5 million – [Hillary would] take 20 million in heart beat.

“This is what you need to be concerned about… If Germany seems like a long way away, it’s really not. If it’s happening in Western Europe today, it’s happening in America tomorrow.”

Considered the most powerful woman in Europe and Time person of the year, Angela Merkel enjoyed an unassailable position in German politics, presiding over a grand coalition and maintaining some of Europe’s strongest poll ratings for a national leader. Yet the migrant crisis has significantly damaged her standing, with Merkel’s centre-right Christian Democratic Party slipping in the polls and the insurgent, anti-mass migration Alternative For Germany surging in recent elections.

The migrant crisis has had a knock-on effect on broader European politics, with concern about mass migration helping to push the United Kingdom out of the European Union in this year’s referendum, and previous European project stalwarts like Hungary and Poland to the point of open rebellion against Brussels in order to prevent the forced relocation of so-called refugees to their nations.

Responding to the same question yesterday, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump also selected Angela Merkel — despite having regularly bashed her over the course of his campaign. Praising her skill as a world leader, he qualified his remarks by criticising her over the migrant crisis, saying he was “very disappointed” in her performance.

Mr. Trump called Merkel’s decision to welcome millions of migrants to the European Union “a very tragic mistake”.