Archive for the ‘Islamic immigration’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Paul Ryan’s Treason

June 21, 2016

Paul Ryan’s Treason, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 21, 2016

paul_ryan

In an awkward interview with the Huffington Post, House Speaker Paul Ryan threatened to sue Donald Trump if he were to ban Muslim immigration or build a border wall with Mexico. Considering the current track record of suing Obama over abuses of power, this is little more than a confession of impotence.

And yet it’s deeply troubling that a top Republican is willing to go to such lengths to fight for Muslim migration or for that matter illegal immigration in general.

Paul Ryan insists that he will continue to “speak up in defense of our principles, in defense of not just our party’s principles, but our country’s principles”, but it’s telling that these principles seem to involve illegal immigration and Muslim migration.

Since when are either of these representative of our party’s principles or our country’s principles?

And yet they are indeed core principles for Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan had complained that a Muslim ban was, “not reflective of our principles not just as a party but as a country.” Like Obama, Ryan speaks of “our principles” without actually referencing specifics. While a constitutional conservative, speaks in terms of the Constitution, Ryan uses the “values” language of the left which references no laws, only general sentiments attributed to no specific law or document.

Though Paul Ryan claims that he wants to maintain the traditional separation of powers, and quotes the exact basis for it, he seems reluctant to do so when he claims that a Muslim ban would be wrong. Ryan knows quite well that his opposition to a Muslim migration ban is not based on the law. Like his support for illegal alien amnesty, it is based on the values construct of the left and not on the Constitution.

Paul Ryan was a longtime supporter of illegal alien amnesty. Back when amnesty was still being disguised as “immigration reform”, Ryan was a key player in pushing it forward. Ryan was so notorious for his support for illegal alien amnesty that he had to promise not to move forward on it under Obama in order to gain enough support to become Speaker. And yet despite this Ryan continues to sound amnesty notes.

Like most of the left, Paul Ryan describes illegal aliens as “undocumented immigrants.” Last year, he once again endorsed some measure of legalization for illegal aliens. Even now his website’s top 5 issues includes a call for “immigration reform” which remains a euphemism for illegal alien amnesty.

As is typical of stealth amnesty bids, up front are a raft of security measures and at the very back is a plan for more guest workers and finally a call to “give people a chance to get right with the law”.

That is yet another amnesty euphemism.

Paul Ryan’s amnesty pledge expires when Obama leaves office. That means that, if we take his website at its word, he would like to push amnesty measures under the next administration. A few years ago he was anticipating a move on “immigration reform” in 2017. And so it is not surprising that he remains less than fond of any calls to crack down on illegal immigration.

While Paul Ryan has currently been fairly quiet about amnesty, there was a time when he was one of the more vocal national legislators throwing out amnesty talking points about a “broken immigration system” and “de facto amnesty”. Ryan was certainly not the only prominent Republican to climb on board the amnesty express, but he remained aboard it long after it was leaving the station.

Despite the general shift in the GOP, there is no sign that Ryan has abandoned it. Instead he views Obama’s divisive tone as having poisoned the wall on amnesty. He’s still the same politician who complained two years ago, “People say, ‘amnesty!’ No, it’s taking a problem that’s intractable, that’s been around forever, and trying to fix it in a way that as best guarantees as you can that we’re not going to be in the same [situation] ten years from now.”

Trump’s victory has made it quite clear that Ryan’s view of amnesty, once mainstream in the GOP, is now on the outs. If Trump were to win a national election, then the country would have ratified a rejection of amnesty. The thing that Ryan once fought so hard for, turning illegal aliens into guest workers, was thoroughly rejected by Republican voters.

But there is no sign that Ryan is willing to give up or give in. And that is the problem.

Paul Ryan insists that a ban on Muslim migration would be wrong because, “Muslims are our partners.” That would come as news to all the Americans killed at home and abroad by “our partners” from Saudi Arabia to Muslim refugees and terrorists operating in the United States. And yet even after the latest Muslim terrorist attack in Orlando, Paul Ryan shows no sign of being willing to reconsider his position.

And that’s not surprising.

Paul Ryan doesn’t represent any kind of national Republican consensus. Instead he is a vocal and effective spokesman for the point of view of his backers and sponsors. That is why Ryan not only supports illegal alien amnesty, but also backs “sentencing reform”, a euphemism for freeing criminals.

Despite the anti-establishment election, Paul Ryan continues to represent a particular strain of elitist establishment politics which is concerned with the advocacy of very specific and specifically destructive policies without regard to their consequences, whether it involves criminals, illegal aliens or Muslim terrorists. These principles are often put forward as conservative, but in fact they are a particular species of libertarianism that has very little regard for national interests and none for their victims.

Ryan’s support for illegal immigration and Muslim migration is treasonous. And yet the deeper treason is his treason to the ordinary Republicans whose views and interests he simply does not seem to care about. This is a problem that did not begin with this election and is not likely to end with it.

And yet it is a problem that must be confronted.

The GOP came dangerously close to endorsing amnesty because special interest agendas mattered more than national interests and community interests. And we are not out of the woods yet.

Paul Ryan represents everything wrong with allowing a handful of special interests to set the agenda for the GOP. The agenda has been repudiated at the polls, but it will take far more work to repudiate it in the GOP.

Categories: Amnesty, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Paul Ryan, Republicans, Uncontrolled immigration
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists

June 20, 2016

Officials Reveal America’s National Security is “Controlled” by the Jihadists, Understanding the Threat, June 20, 2016

(Please see also, Saudis Kept Two Terror Groups Off U.S. List. –DM)

Two former U.S. government officials made explosive revelations on national radio this past Friday including the charge the U.S. government is a “tool” for the jihadi movement here, and that the driving force behind America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and our foreign policy is the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

UTT2President Obama with Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas leader (Islamic Society of North America) Imam Mohamed Magid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling, Virginia

The exchange took place on the Sean Hannity radio program between the host, Philip Haney (former DHS law enforcement officer with Customs and Border Protection) and Richard Higgins (a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programs at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section).

Both Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins revealed there is a massive Muslim Brotherhood movement in the United States, and made clear the MB’s influence is so significant they control how the issue of terrorism is discussed and how it is handled at the national security level.

humaHillary Clinton and closest aide Huma Abedin, who is an operative for the MB Movement

When asked about language being scrubbed from the U.S. government Mr. Higgins responded by saying, “What (leaders in the US government) are actually scrubbing is any references to the Islamic doctrine that would allow us to define who is or who is not actually one of our enemies.”

He went on to say, “When you look at the deliberate decision-making process of the United States government as it relates to radical Islam, that deliberate decision-making process is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood.  And the way they control it is by prohibiting US national security personnel from ever developing an understanding to the level where Phil (Haney) had it.”

magid_mcdonoughMB/Hamas Leader Imam Magid with the President’s Chief of Staff and Former Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

More precisely Mr. Higgins said, “To bring it back to the point earlier about the United States being put to work fulfilling the objectives of the Brotherhood:  the Brotherhood was killed en masse by Saddam Hussein – we removed him.  Qaddafi killed the Muslim Brotherhood – we removed him. We asked Mubarak to go. We are their instrument because they control our deliberate decision-making process.”

UTT has written about the willful surrender to our enemies by American leaders here, here, and here.

elibiaryFormer DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swearing in MB Leader Mohamed Elibiary to the DHS Advisory Committee

With regard to the Marxist/Socialist collaboration with the Muslim Brotherhood – as UTT has detailed via the Black Lives Matter/Hamas relationship – Mr. Higgins warned, “Every time one of these attacks happens in the United States, you see the Left in unison with the Muslim Brotherhood immediately respond with direct attacks on the First and Second Amendments.  That is not by accident, and we are going to continue to see that.”

Philip Haney’s story is devastating to hear because he publicly states he was ordered by DHS supervisors to remove the names of terrorists and terrorist organizations from DHS databases which he inputted through the course of investigations he was conducting.

This is a violation of the law.  The names removed included several known Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

His story can be found here or here, and his powerful new book See Something, Say Nothing is now available.

Mr. Haney reiterated what UTT has been teaching and publishing for years:  “The gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is not radicalization, the gravitational force of the Global Islamic Movement is the implementation of sharia Law.”

It’s all about sharia.

Both Mr. Higgins and Mr. Haney made it clear the jihadi threat to America must be addressed immediately or we will suffer significant consequences for our inaction and for allowing our leaders to surrender their duties to our enemies.

Philip Haney said it best when he articulated, “This is the first and foremost obligation of the U.S. government:  to protect it’s citizens from a threat, both foreign and domestic.  And I can also tell you that if we don’t address it voluntarily with courage and conviction now, we’re going to be addressing it involuntarily, and we are going to be at a much greater disadvantage than we already are right now.”

The full audio for the show can be found HERE and the discussion with Mr. Haney and Mr. Higgins begins at approximately minute 14.

Categories: CAIR, Dept. of Homeland Security, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Leftists, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

How the Democrats are Disarming Us

June 20, 2016

How the Democrats are Disarming Us, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, June 20, 2016

obama-wc2 (1)

Reprinted from Breitbart.com. 

According to a Gallup poll taken in the week after the atrocity in Orlando, only 29% of Democrats thought this was an Islamic terror attack. Fully 60% of all Democrats attributed the attack to “domestic gun violence.” Moreover 42% of independents felt the same way. Only 44% attributed it to the Islamic holy war that has been declared on America and the West.1

How is this possible? During the massacre, the terrorist himself took pains to post messages declaring that his acts were acts of Islamic terror against America. “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance,” one message said. Another warned, “in the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the USA.”2 Moreover, in the days following the attack a dossier of his behavior and associations going back more than fifteen years showed that he saw himself as a warrior for Islam and a jihadist in the making. The FBI had interviewed him twice – once in 2013 after co-workers reported that he made “inflammatory” comments to them about radical Islamic propaganda, and the following year because of ties with a fellow Muslim who traveled to Syria to become a suicide bomber.

How then could 60% of Democrats and 42% of Independents think that the killings in Orlando had nothing to do with radical Islam or Islamic terror? How could they think it was simply a matter of domestic gun violence similar to other mass shootings by deranged individuals whose motives had nothing to do with Islam or the Islamic state? The reason they could be so misled is because the president himself said it had nothing to do with Islam and warned that thinking it did was a form of bigotry that could hurt America – indeed would be a betrayal of America’s true self. He went out of his way to mock Trump who had said that it was radical Islamic terror, and to insinuate that he was a bigot. The president’s disinformation and attack on Trump were seconded and amplified by the Democratic Party and the Democrat’s kept national media, who spent the days after Orlando pushing gun control legislation, and stressing the shooter’s “instability” and the alleged indeterminacy of his motives. And also tarring Trump as a bigot for taking the shooter at his word.

In this we have a microcosm of why all eight domestic terror attacks on Obama’s watch – beginning with the Fort Hood massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing – were carried out by individuals on the FBI’s radar who could have been stopped if the early warning signs of their commitments to the Islamic jihad hadn’t been dismissed.

Political correctness is a euphemism for the active, ideologically motivated denial that has characterized the Democrats’ approach to Islamic terror going back to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. In that attack 1,000 people were wounded and six were killed, but president Clinton refused to visit the site, while his administration took the view that the perpetrators were merely individuals who needed to be tried in criminal courts. In fact, they were soldiers in a holy war that radical Islamists had declared against America and the West. 3

Obama’s main concern, which has been manifest in his statements after each incidence of Islamic terror, has been to absolve the Islamists of any responsibility for the attacks. The Ft. Hood massacre was carried out by a disciple of Anwar al-Awlaki, the head of al-Qaeda in Libya, who described himself as a “Muslim Soldier” even though he was a Major in the U.S. army, and said his murders were to avenge the Muslims that America had killed in Afghanistan. Yet the Obama administration dismissed his terrorist act as “workplace violence.” The Obama administration has expunged all references to Islam from terrorist guidelines. Worse it has enjoined the FBI from looking at the religious affiliations and commitments of potential suspects. This is the way the FBI was able to dismiss the warnings from Russian intelligence agents about the Boston Marathon bombers, who were Islamist militants. It is how American immigration officials allowed the Pakistani-born San Bernardino shooter to enter the country, despite her residence in a country that created the Taliban and protected Osama bin Laden, and her association with a terrorist mosque.

This denial is also what has allowed Obama to respond to the Orlando massacre by issuing a million visas to Syrian Muslims, who will not be adequately vetted and will flood this country with individuals whose ranks ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups have already infiltrated and who may be sympathetic to radical Islamic agendas in very large numbers.4

Obama’s denial of the religious nature of the war that Islamic radicals have declared on America and his ability to require the FBI and other first responders to join in this denial is a form of unilateral disarmament paralleled by his determination to reduce America’s defense forces to their lowest levels since World War II. This denial – shared by the Democratic Party – is why we are losing the war with Islamic fanatics, and why the homeland has become an increasingly dangerous place.

That Obama is able to seduce a very large number of Americans into sharing his denial is fact with ominous implications for the election in November, and for America’s ability to right its current dangerous course. Obama has been abetted in this sinister effort by the feckless leadership of the Republican Party. In the days following the Orlando massacre instead of hammering the president and the Democrats as a unified force, Republicans directed their fire at Donald Trump, joining Democrats in attempting to discredit not only his much needed warning, but his practical recommendations for turning the ship of state around: recognize the religious nature of the war against us; halt immigration from Muslim war zones until a proper vetting process is in place; surveil mosques and other recruitment centers for the jihadist enemy; restore America’s military power.

The self-serving anti-Trump salvos from Paul Ryan and other misguided Republican leaders made the Republican message – gun violence is not the problem, radical Islam is – incoherent or at least so diluted as to allow Obama and the Democrats to prevail in the debate. If the Orlando post-mortem is an indication, the election may not go well in November. If that is the case not only Donald Trump, but America’s hopes for a safer future, will fail.

______________________

1http://www.gallup.com/poll/192842/republicans-democrats-interpret-orlando-incident-differently.aspx

2http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/dangerous-denial-just-29-of-democrats-say-orlando-was-an-islamic-terror-attack/

3http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-does-obama-keep-missing-red-flags-before-islamic-terror-attacks/

4http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/obama-admin-pace-issue-one-million-green-cards-migrants-majority-muslim-countries/

Categories: Democrats, Donald Trump, Gun control, Homeland Security, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Political correctness, Republican establishment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Robert Spencer Moment: Trump Was Right.

June 18, 2016

Robert Spencer Moment: Trump Was Right via YouTube, June 17, 2016

Categories: Civilization jihad, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic refugees, Islamic supremacy, National secuity, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Border Control vs. Gun Control

June 18, 2016

Border Control vs. Gun Control, Power Line, John Hinderaker, June 17, 2016

The Pulse night club massacre was the latest in a series of Islamic terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, quite a few of which have succeeded, while others have been foiled. These attacks have used a variety of weapons: box cutters, knives, pistols, pressure cookers and rifles. There is a sharp partisan divide with respect to how such terrorist attacks should be viewed.

Republicans say that we should try harder to keep potential terrorists out of the country. Since we have no practical way to vet immigrants, and, in any event, Islamic extremists tend to be second generation Muslims like Omar Mateen, the only realistic way to do this is by reducing, or suspending altogether, immigration from Muslim-dominated countries. This is Donald Trump’s proposal.

That would be a radical departure from present practice. Senator Jeff Sessions’ Senate subcommittee has released this chart, which shows that the Obama administration will soon have issued one million green cards to immigrants from Islamic countries. Click to enlarge:

Green cards

Sessions’ office adds this explanation:

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Notably, the 832,014 figure does not include temporary, nonimmigrant visas issued to migrants who come to the United States simply to work, nor does it include those who have come to the United States on temporary visas and overstayed their authorized period of admission.

Among those receiving green cards are individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, who are required to apply for adjustment to Lawful Permanent Resident (green card) status within 1 year of admission. A green card entitles recipients to access federal benefits, lifetime residency, work authorization, and a direct route to becoming a U.S. citizen.

Why are we doing this? When did we vote for it? Who decided that it was a good idea to import, for example, 102,000 Pakistanis? A few of them are doctors and so on, but what about the rest? Why do we need them? We know the downside, what is the upside?

There are 37,000 Somalis on the list. Hardly any of these are physicians, scientists, etc., and most have been shipped to my home state. Why? More than 50% of Somali-American men in Minnesota are not in the labor force. On what theory does this benefit the United States? I have never seen such a rationale articulated.

No doubt the majority of these million-plus Muslims are good people. But no one questions that some percentage of them will turn out to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Or their sons and daughters will be. No one knows what that proportion is, but even if it is small, the risk is large. Why are we taking it?

Democrats don’t think this way at all. They say it is impossible to know who will turn out to be a terrorist, and therefore, the best we can do is to make sure that would-be terrorists don’t have guns. The solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism (not that any Democrat admits that Islamic terrorism is a problem) is gun control.

To support this interpretation of events, Democrats portray Islamic terrorists as indistinguishable from crazy people who commit similar outrages–people like Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, Eric Harris and Charles Whitman. Islamic terror, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell us, has nothing to do with Islam. It is just random insanity. On that theory, it is pointless to keep out any category of immigrants, and preventing future terrorist attacks mass murder incidents is pretty much hopeless. All we can do is try to prevent murderers from obtaining firearms (or certain firearms, anyway) so that their victims might be fewer in number.

And yet…there does seem to be something going on here. David French reminds us of what has happened, just during the last two years:

* From April to June, 2014, Ali Muhammed Brown killed four Americans on a “mission of vengeance” against the United States.

* On September 25, 2014, Alton Nolen beheaded an Oklahoma woman with a knife. His social media pages were covered with evidence of jihadist leanings and motivations.

* On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked an exhibit of Mohammed images in Garland, Texas. They wounded a security officer, but police killed them before they were able to carry out mass murder.

* On July 16, 2015, Mohammad Abdulazeez killed five people at two Chattanooga recruiting stations. FBI director James Comey declared that Abdulazeez was “inspired/motivated” by terrorist propaganda.

* On November 4, 2015, Faisal Mohammed went on an ISIS-inspired stabbing spree — wounding four — before he was killed by campus police.

* On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS then killed 14 people and wounded 21 at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, Calif.

* On January 8, 2015, Edward Archer pledged himself to ISIS and attempted to assassinate a Philadelphia police officer. The wounded officer chased down and apprehended Archer before he could commit any other acts of violence.

* On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen pledged himself to ISIS and killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

The Europeans could add many more to that list. Somehow, the random insanity theory doesn’t seem to fit.

Moreover, we now know that Omar Mateen’s wife–who, like so many Islamic radicals, grew up wealthy–knew about his plans for mass murder in the name of Allah, accompanied him when he scoped out murder venues and bought ammunition, and exchanged texts with him as he carried out his “mission.” And it came out today that Mateen’s brother in law refuses to say whether he knew about Mateen’s plan for jihad.

Consider the other mass murderers who, liberals say, were just like Mateen and the many other Islamic terrorists. Did Adam Lanza’s relatives know about his plans? Did they help him carry them out? Of course not. Lanza’s plan included murdering his mother. It is only Islamic terrorists whose cries of “Allahu Akbar!” as they open fire are joined in by accomplices and supporters. This isn’t random insanity, it is a global movement.

Those are arguments for immigration control. How about the Democrats’ arguments for more gun control? Would their proposals do any good?

The Democrats want to ban semi-automatic rifles, but only if they are black. (There is a funny Twitter meme–a picture of an AR-15 that says, “It’s because I’m black, isn’t it?”) This is an amazingly dumb idea. Rifles are the least popular murder weapons, ranking well below blunt objects, knives, shotguns and bare hands. Democrats say: but you can kill so many, so fast, with a rifle! News flash: you can pull the trigger on a pistol just as fast as on a rifle, and, unless you are 50 yards or more distant, which is never the case in a mass murder situation, the pistol is just as lethal.

Democrats also want anyone on the FBI’s no-fly list to be barred from buying guns. Intuitively, that sounds like a good idea. But the first problem is that the no-fly list is a joke. Ted Kennedy was on it, Omar Mateen wasn’t. As far as we know, not a single murderer, terrorist or otherwise, has ever been on the no-fly list. (I assume for this purpose that Kennedy’s grossly negligent drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne was not murder.) So best case, the no-fly ban does no good.

The second problem is that the no-fly list is concocted in secret and there is no way to get off it. This is a significant civil rights issue. The NRA says that the FBI should have to go through a judge, the equivalent of a search warrant, and show probable cause to put someone on the list.

The third problem, and the reason why the FBI opposes the Democrats’ proposal, is that it gives actual terrorists an easy way to find out whether the authorities are on to them: try to buy a gun. So the Democrats’ plan to ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying a gun is at best ill-considered.

More broadly, the Democrats’ core idea–go ahead and admit lots of potential terrorists, but don’t let them get their hands on a gun–flies in the face of reality. Convicted criminals are legally prohibited from buying guns. Does that prevent them from being armed? Of course not. Further, has any terrorist attack ever been thwarted because the would-be terrorist couldn’t find a gun? Not that I know of. A fundamental problem with all gun control proposals is that law-abiding citizens will follow them, but criminals (including, above all, terrorists) will not.

As is so often the case, the Democrats’ proposals are intended to gain political advantage, not to produce positive results. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem to have succeeded in converting the debate over the terrorist attack in Orlando to one about gun control. This is sad, but but doesn’t change reality: while neither approach is a panacea, it makes much more sense to control our borders than to admit all comers and try to foil terrorists through even more gun control measures than are already in place.

Categories: Border controls, Democrats, Donald Trump, Insanity, Islam and terrorism, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic radicalization, Islamic supremacy, No fly lists, Obama and gun control, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Republicans
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The ‘Never Trump’ Murder-Suicide Pact

June 17, 2016

The ‘Never Trump’ Murder-Suicide Pact, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, June 17, 2016

Never Trump

[T]he really big problem remains that of the Republican leadership, which thinks that “We’re stuck with Trump but we won’t dump him!” is an appropriate battle cry. As we all know, the Democrats are vicious, unprincipled attack dogs with a kept and unprincipled media in their camp. Passivity in the face of this blitzkrieg is, in practice, no different than a white-flag surrender. Paul Ryan summed up Republican fatuity in his answers to media questions in the wake of Orlando about whether he’s still supporting Trump. Ryan’s answer: he would be defending Republican principles in this election. Well, Paul, principles aren’t running in this election. Candidates are. And unless Republicans rally around Trump, and Trump beats Hillary, Republican principles are going down with him.

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

Reprinted from Breitbart.com. 

Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America’s mortal enemy in the Middle East – and every Democrat to a man and woman defends his betrayal; Hillary Clinton violates the Espionage Act and delivers classified secrets, including information on an impending drone attack, to America’s enemies – and every Democrat to a man and woman defends her. Obama and Clinton lie about matters of war and peace – and every progressive publicly swears they are telling the truth.

But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting “radical Islam,” securing America’s borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself.

The left is blaming Christians, Republicans, and guns for the Orlando slaughter. The president and Hillary are claiming that ISIS is on the run – a lie flatly contradicted by the CIA director himself. They want to disarm Americans. If Hillary is elected, borders will stay open, and protecting Muslims will take priority over fighting Islam’s holy war against us.

In other words, Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run. Where, to take one example, is Ted Cruz? He claims to be a patriot and care about the Constitution, but he is AWOL — sulking like Achilles in his tent over personal slights he can’t get past to fight for his country’s survival. The Republican leader of the Senate and his second-in-command have both announced they will not participate in the presidential election, while the leader of the House makes clear his extreme embarrassment over Trump’s proposals to establish immigration policies appropriate to a nation under siege. This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.

There are actually two wars we are engaged in– one with the Islamic caliphate and the other with an American left that refuses to recognize the enemy we face or the magnitude and nature of the threat. In this internal war, too many on the right have taken a course whose only practical effect can be seen as a betrayal of their cause. Erick Erickson has summed up the view of the Republican renegades in this succinct phrase: “We are in the midst of a murder-suicide pact that will be our ruination.”

This is, in fact, a precise description of what the #NeverTrump right is up to. But in Erickson’s inversion of reality, it is “the Republican Party [that] intends to murder the nation and commit suicide along the way.” What Erickson and his fellow saboteurs, led by Mitt Romney and Bill Kristol, want is for the Republican Party to block Trump and repudiate the record number of Republican primary voters who nominated him. This would actually be a Republican suicide in November – one that would indeed “murder the nation.”

Although the defection of the Republican leadership from the field of battle is still ongoing, there has been a break in the ranks of the #NeverTrump spoilers. Two of their leading intellectual figures, Hugh Hewitt and Andy McCarthy, have finally come to realize not just the futility of their efforts but their destructiveness as well. For the sake of the nation, let’s hope that there are a lot more such reversals on the way.

Meanwhile, the really big problem remains that of the Republican leadership, which thinks that “We’re stuck with Trump but we won’t dump him!” is an appropriate battle cry. As we all know, the Democrats are vicious, unprincipled attack dogs with a kept and unprincipled media in their camp. Passivity in the face of this blitzkrieg is, in practice, no different than a white-flag surrender. Paul Ryan summed up Republican fatuity in his answers to media questions in the wake of Orlando about whether he’s still supporting Trump. Ryan’s answer: he would be defending Republican principles in this election. Well, Paul, principles aren’t running in this election. Candidates are. And unless Republicans rally around Trump, and Trump beats Hillary, Republican principles are going down with him.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Donald Trump, Islamic immigration, Media, Never Trumpers, Republican establishment, Republican principles
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Muslim Privilege Killed 49 People in Orlando

June 16, 2016

Muslim Privilege Killed 49 People in Orlando, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 16, 2016

Flowers in Orlando

The deadliest mass shooting in American history happened because of Islamophobia.

Islamophobia killed 49 people in Orlando. It didn’t kill 49 Muslims. Instead it allowed Omar Mateen, a Muslim terrorist, to kill 49 people in the name of his Islamic ideology and the Islamic State.

Omar, like so many other Muslim killers, could have been stopped. He talked about killing people when he worked at G4S Security, a Federal contractor that provided services to the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. But, according to one of the co-workers he stalked, a former police officer, his employers refused to do anything about it because he was a Muslim.

The FBI conducted an investigation of Omar Mateen. They put him on a watch list and sent informants. They interviewed him and concluded that his claims of Al Qaeda ties and terrorist threats were reactions to “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” Omar told the agents that he said those things because “his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim.”

And they believed him.

Poor Omar wasn’t a potential terrorist. He was just a victim of Islamophobia.

Omar got away with homophobic comments that would have gotten Americans fired because he was Muslim. He weathered an “extensive” FBI investigation because he was Muslim.

Anyone who says that there is no such thing as Muslim Privilege ought to look at Omar Mateen.

There is a direct line between Omar’s Muslim privilege and the Pulse massacre. Omar Mateen’s Muslim privilege protected him from consequences. While the media studiously paints the image of a beleaguered population of American Muslims suffering the stigma of constant suspicion, Omar’s Muslim background actually served as a shield and excused behavior that would have been unacceptable for anyone else. Omar Mateen’s Muslim privilege shielded him until he was actually murdering non-Muslims.

And Omar’s case is not unique. The Fort Hood killer, Nidal Hasan, handed out business cards announcing that he was a Jihadist. He delivered a presentation justifying suicide bombings, but no action was taken. Like Omar, the FBI was aware of Hasan. It knew that he was talking to Al Qaeda bigwig Anwar Al-Awlaki, yet nothing was done. Instead of worrying about his future victims, the FBI was concerned that investigating him and interviewing him would “harm Hasan’s career”.

One of his classmates later said that the military authorities, “Don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.”

Would the FBI have been as sensitive if Nidal Hasan had been named Frank Wright? No more than Omar Mateen would have kept his security job if his name had been Joe Johnson.

It’s an increasingly familiar story.

The neighbors of San Bernardino killers Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik noticed that something strange was going on, but they were afraid of profiling Muslims. If they had done the right thing, the 14 victims of the two Muslim killers would still be alive. If the FBI had done the right thing with Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood victims would still be alive and whole. If the FBI had done the right thing with Omar Mateen, his 49 victims would still be alive and those he wounded would still be whole.

We have some basic choices to make. We can empathize with Muslims or with their victims.

We cannot however do both.

After 9/11, Muslims somehow became the biggest victim group in America. And even if you contend that most Muslims are not responsible for the actions of Islamic fundamentalist groups, even if you believe that most Muslims are being wrongly blamed for the actions of a smaller group of radicals, the pernicious myth of Muslim victimhood has become a distorting force that protects terrorists.

Muslim victimhood has elevated Islamist groups such as CAIR to the front row of political discourse alongside legitimate civil rights organizations, despite their terror links and history of obstructing law enforcement efforts to fight Islamic terrorism, while mainstreaming their Islamist agendas.

Muslim victimhood has silenced the victims of Muslim terrorism. Every Muslim terror attack is swiftly diverted to the inevitable “backlash” narrative in which the media turns away from the bodies in the latest terror attack to bring us the stories of the real Muslim victims who fear being blamed for it.

This obscene act of media distraction silences the victims of Muslim terrorism and rewards the enablers and accomplices of Muslim terrorism instead. It is every bit as terrible as claiming that the real victims of a serial killer are his family members who are being blamed for not turning him in, instead of the people he killed and the loved ones they left behind.

Muslim victimhood protects Muslim terrorists like Omar Mateen. It shields them from scrutiny. It invents excuses for them. While Omar made his preparations, while the FBI investigation of him was botched, the media leaped nimbly from a thousand petty claims of Muslim victimhood. And the worst of them may have been Tahera Ahmad, a Muslim woman who claimed she was discriminated against when a flight attendant poured her soda in a cup instead of being given a can. This insane nonsense received days of media coverage. That’s more airtime than any American victim of Islamic terrorism has received.

The media will wait as short a period as it can and turn away from Orlando to some manufactured viral media claim of Muslim discrimination that will be unbearably petty. Meanwhile the next Omar Mateen will be plotting his next act of terror.

It’s time to tell the truth.

Islamic terrorism is caused by Muslim privilege. These acts of violence are motivated by racism and supremacism in Islam. Allahu Akbar, the Islamic battle cry often associated with acts of terror and ethnic cleansing since its origin in Mohammed’s persecution of the Jews, is a statement of Muslim superiority to non-Muslims.

Muslim terrorism is not the groan of an oppressed minority. Its roots run back to racist and supremacist Islamic societies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt where non-Muslims have few if any civil rights. Muslims are a global majority. Islamic terrorism is their way of imposing their religious system on everyone.

Standing in solidarity with Muslims after Orlando makes as much sense as standing in solidarity with Klansmen after the Charleston massacre. No one should be standing in solidarity with hate groups.

Omar wasn’t radicalized by the “internet”. He got his ideas from Islamic clerics who got their ideas from Islam. He was “radicalized” by the holiest texts of Islam. Just like every other Muslim terrorist. His actions weren’t “senseless” or “nihilistic”, he was acting out the Muslim privilege of a bigoted ideology.

Even in this country, the majority of hate crimes are not directed at Muslims. Instead Muslims have disproportionately contributed to persecuting various minority groups. Orlando is only the latest example of this trend. In Europe, Jews are fleeing Sweden and France because of Muslim persecution. In Germany, gay refugees have to be housed separately from Muslim migrants. So do Christian refugees.

This isn’t the behavior of victims. These are the actions of oppressors.

Muslims are not part of the coalition of the oppressed, but of the oppressors. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can deal stop Islamic terrorism and protect the victims of Muslim terrorists.

Muslim privilege killed 49 people in Orlando. How many people will it kill next week or next month? How many will it kill in the next decade or the next century?

The Muslim genocide of non-Muslims is already happening in Syria and Iraq. Islam has a long genocidal history. And if we continue to confuse the oppressors and the oppressed, the next genocide we fail to stop may be our own.

Categories: CAIR, Homeland Security, Islamic immigration, Islamic radicalization, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Law enforcement, Muslim privilege, Obama and Islam, Orlando massacre, Supporting terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Are Democrats Winning the Political Battle over Islamic Terror?

June 15, 2016

Are Democrats Winning the Political Battle over Islamic Terror?, Power Line,  John Hinderaker, June 15, 2016

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Orlando, battle lines were clearly drawn. Donald Trump claimed credit for sounding warnings about Islamic terrorism and called, once again, for a suspension of immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton expressed outrage at Trump’s reaction and doubled down on the claim that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. That, together with the assertion that being selective about immigration is “not who we are.”

My instinct was that Trump decisively won the political battle. (I also think he is right as a matter of policy, of course.) However, early poll results suggest that assessment may be wrong. A CBS News poll out this morning says that most Americans agree with Barack Obama, not Trump:

A CBS News poll conducted in the days since the attack finds 51 percent of those surveyed said they did not like the way Trump was handling the shooting. … Just 25 percent of those surveyed said they approved of Trump’s reaction.

Ouch.

The numbers for President Barack Obama’s handling of the shooting are much better. Forty-four percent of Americans gave Obama high marks for his response, while 34 percent gave him an unfavorable rating.

I find that rather shocking, given that Trump was right when he said Obama was more angry at Trump than he was at the terrorist.

For whatever reason–perhaps merely the fact that her statements weren’t as widely covered as Trump’s and Obama’s–voters have a less clear reaction to Hillary’s response to the attack:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s response rating was split, with 36 percent favorable, 34 percent unfavorable and 30 percent of respondents saying they did not know or did not answer.

These results are disturbing. Maybe they confirm, once again, that America is now a center-left country, rather than center-right. Maybe the cause is narrower: the Democrats have succeeded in demonizing Trump to the point that most people will disapprove, no matter what he says. Maybe the problem is partly due to the fact that a number of prominent Republicans have joined in the attacks on Trump, thereby isolating him. In any event, the fact (assuming this CBS poll is representative) most Americans’ first instinct is to side with Obama’s view of terrorism rather than Trump’s is discouraging. This should be Trump’s strongest suit.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Media, Obama and Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Why are 2nd generation Muslim immigrants becoming jihadis?

June 15, 2016

Why are 2nd generation Muslim immigrants becoming jihadis? Brigitte Gabriel via YouTube, June 15, 2016

Categories: 2nd generation Muslims, Europe, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic radicalization, Islamic refugees, Islamic terror groups, Islamisation, Islamism, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Mosques in U.S., Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Finally: A Realistic Plan for Fighting the Jihad and Protecting Americans

June 14, 2016

Finally: A Realistic Plan for Fighting the Jihad and Protecting Americans, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, June 14, 2016

(Please see also, Donald Trump’s Full Speech on National Security/Hillary Clinton in Manchester, NH (6-13-16) — DM)

Trump on Jihad

Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us? 

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

We’ve gotten so used to politically correct obfuscation about Islam being a religion of peace that preaches tolerance and non-violence that Donald Trump’s words in his address Monday were startling: “Many of the principles of radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions. Remember this, radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American. I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people are targets of persecution and intimation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.”

Trump continued: “This is not just a national security issue. It’s a quality of life issue. If we want to protect the quality of life for all Americans — women and children, gay and straight, Jews and Christians and all people then we need to tell the truth about radical Islam and we need to do it now.”

One may quibble about whether jihad violence and Sharia oppression in Islam are really “radical,” but the fact is that Donald Trump has become the first nominee of either party since 9/11 to reject the usual nonsense about how jihadis believe in and preach a twisted, hijacked version of the religion of peace. Even more importantly, Trump is now the first presidential candidate since maybe John Quincy Adams to recognize that the problem posed by Islam is not just restricted to the specter of violent jihad attacks, but is, given Sharia oppression of women, gays, and non-Muslims, very much, as Trump put it, a “quality of life issue.”

Trump declared his determination to prevent more jihad attacks such as the one in Orlando Saturday night above all by reiterating his proposal temporarily to “suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.” CNN huffed: “Critics of Trump’s policies, however, have pointed out that the perpetrator of the Orlando massacre was born in the U.S.”

Those critics are not being honest. What Trump actually said was that the Orlando jihad mass murderer was born “of Afghan parents, who immigrated to the United States.” He noted, quite correctly, that “the bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place, was because we allowed his family to come here,” and pointed out, quite rightly, that “we have a dysfunctional immigration system, which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens properly….We’re importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system and through an intelligence community held back by our president. Even our own FBI director has admitted that we cannot effectively check the backgrounds of people we’re letting into America. ”

Can any truthful person seriously dispute that? Tashfeen Malik, who, along with her husband Syed Rizwan Farook murdered fourteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino last December 2, had passed five separate background checks from five different U.S. government agencies. If the U.S. did not have a “dysfunctional immigration system,” she would never have been in the country in the first place. And neither would her husband, about whom Trump noted that he was “the child of immigrants from Pakistan and he brought his wife, the other terrorist from Saudi Arabia through another one of our easily exploited visa programs.”

Trump skewered Hillary Clinton for having “repeatedly refused to even say the words radical Islam until I challenged her yesterday.” He quoted her fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism” and opined “she’s in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”

Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?

Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. The bottom line, to borrow one of Trump’s pet phrases, is that Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.

Another foray into political incorrectness in Trump’s speech was his insistence that the Muslim community in the U.S. has “to work with us. They have to cooperate with law enforcement and turn in the people who they know are bad. They know it. And they have to do it, and they have to do it forthwith….The Muslims have to work with us. They have to work with us. They know what’s going on. They know that he was bad. They knew the people in San Bernardino were bad. But you know what? They didn’t turn them in. And you know what? We had death, and destruction.”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was furious. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper claimed that “law enforcement authorities have repeatedly stated that they have tremendous cooperation from the Muslim community.” CAIR’s hypocrisy is astounding, as it has more than once advised Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. In January 2011, its San Francisco chapter featured on its website a poster that read, “Build A Wall of Resistance / Don’t Talk to the FBI.” In November 2014, CAIR-Florida’s “14th Annual Banquet Rooted in Faith” in Tampa distributed pamphlets entitled “What to do if the FBI comes for you” and featuring a graphic of a person holding a finger to his lips in the “shhh” signal.

Another CAIR pamphlet, entitled “Know Your Rights: Defending Rights, Defeating Intolerance” featured a graphic of the Statue of Liberty likewise making the “shhh” symbol. Cyrus McGoldrick, a former official of Hamas-linked CAIR’s New York chapter, even threatened informants, tweeting with brutal succinctness: “Snitches get stitches.” Zahra Billoo of CAIR-San Francisco regularly tweets that Muslims have no obligation to talk to the FBI, and should contact Hamas-linked CAIR if the FBI asks to talk to them.

This is the group criticizing Trump for noting that Muslim communities have not been any significant help in rooting out jihadis from among them?

Trump’s most revolutionary proposal was for an overhaul of our entire foreign policy establishment and the assumptions upon which it rests – assumptions that have led us into numerous blind alleys and failed initiatives. He said: “The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow like nobody has ever seen before. These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region. That is why our new goal must be to defeat Islamic terrorism not nation building. No more nation building. It’s never going to work.”

Indeed. It didn’t work in Iraq. It hasn’t worked in Afghanistan. We have poured billions into Pakistan since 9/11 to help them fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the Pakistani government has funneled a good deal of that money to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Trump said it: “And by the way we’ve spent almost $5 trillion over the years on trying to nation build in the Middle East and it has been complete and total disaster.” Yet despite the fact that its policies have failed again and again and again, the foreign policy establishment keeps reappointing and promoting those responsible for those failures, allowing them to make more mistakes in ever-larger arenas. But no candidate has ever challenged that establishment – until now.

Trump offered one more common sense that no establishment politician has thought to or dared to make: he suggested that there needs to be a reconfiguration of our alliances, which are still based on the Cold War. “NATO,” he said, “needs to change its focus and stop terrorism….America must unite the whole civilized world in the fight against Islamic terrorism.”

Indeed. The world is on fire courtesy of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If America votes in November for more of the same, we will soon be engulfed in those flames as well. On Monday, Donald Trump outlined an unprecedentedly realistic plan for putting out the fire.

Categories: 2016 elections, CAIR, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security, Homosexuals, Islam and human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic jihad, Islamic reformation, Islamic terror groups, Islamists in America, Obama and Islam, Obama and Jihad, Orlando massacre, Trump on Islamic jihad
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »