(Mexico, along with nearly all of Latin America, is endemically corrupt. The United States already has more than enough corruption and we do not need to import more. — DM)
I love Mexico. I have been there dozens of times from the border to the Chiapas jungle. I love almost everything about it.
But like so many, I detest their government. It has been a disaster longer than I have been alive. And glorious as the art and architecture may be, there’s that other more depressing Mexico – the land of El Chapo, mordidas and murder – the desperate barrios you see from the cab if you accidentally stray from the Zona Rosa or Polanco or one of the other tony neighborhoods of the Distrito Federal. This is the world’s capital of income inequality.
Mexico, wonderful as it is to visit, is intolerably corrupt. Corruption in Mexico even merits its own Wikipedia entry. Most of us who have been there on multiple occasions have experienced it. I have paid a mordida to their cops myself more than once for traffic infractions I didn’t commit to avoid being hauled off to jail. It’s just the price you pay for enjoying yourself down there, sort of like meeting the troll at the bridge.
The corruption never seems to change, no matter who is in power, with a large percentage of their population living in unspeakable poverty. The misery of these people is so extreme you avert your eyes when confronted by it and try to pretend it’s not there, so it doesn’t affect you too much. But you can’t.
The USA has for generations been the stopgap for this poverty, providing work for the Central American jobless, the millions of illegal aliens in our midst, who send remittances home from the storefronts we see across Los Angeles and other cities of our country. It’s always been like that, with America, inadvertently or not, enabling this corrupt Mexican system, often for the advantage of America’s corporations but not her people. I never thought it would be different.
And then along comes Donald Trump wanting to build that wall and make Mexico (gasp!) pay for it. Needless to say, Mexican officiales went ballistic, notably former president Vincente Fox who accused Trump of bringing back the era of the “Ugly American” and went so far as to say that Trump’s election could lead to “war” between Mexico and the United States. Other officials are taking a more modern approach, initiating a public relations campaign this June to counter the view of Mexico being promulgated by the man they call “The Clown.”
But public relations is the last thing Mexico needs. It needs change. Public relations, in this instance no more than spin on a grand scale, is the enemy of that. It simply papers over a bad situation and prevents it from improving.
Ironically, Donald Trump is Mexico’s best friend right now – not of the officials, of course, or their extraordinarily large billionaire class – but of the Mexican people themselves. By actually bottling up the border and reducing the flow to legal immigration, something that has not been done for decades, if ever, Trump and his allies are forcing the Mexican government to deal with their own problems. That’s not going to happen as long as El Norte is here to solve everything for them. It never happened while the border was open and will never happen until it’s closed.
Mexican officials and our liberal-progressives think Trump is acting like a racist, or is one, for proposing this action. But actually, whether he realizes it or not, Donald is giving Mexico a little amor duro (tough love, in Spanish) that it sorely needs, has needed for one helluva long time. Whether Mexico will be able to accept it is another matter. But that’s always the question with “tough love,” isn’t it?
[M]ight we make Trump the precedent-shattering break from historical practice? We very well might, for the simple reason that only someone who is genuinely an outsider—a way outsider in every way—like Trump stands a chance of restoring some semblance of sensible government. One can imagine a President Trump governing like “President Dave” in the movie from the mid-1990s, and saying “Why do we have 55 federal job training programs? How about eliminating at least two-thirds of them?” Rinse and repeat. In other words, what is required is a disposition much different than Ross Perot’s risible slogan of “getting under the hood and fixin’ it.”
************************
I recant none of my previous criticisms of Trump’s unsuitability to be president, but the case that he—and he alone—has an unprecedented opportunity to disrupt (in the right ways) the crisis of American government today deserves to be understood. The most sophisticated, though perhaps sophistical, case comes from our friends at the Journal of American Greatness, though even they admit that they may be reading more into Trump than is there. (And c’mon Decius, no one who uses the term “noetic heterogeneity” is going to get a job in the Trump Administration.)
I have a simpler case, and, unusual for me, it doesn’t require any classical metaphysics. I keep coming back to the curious fact that so many Bernie Sanders voters (almost half in West Virginia) say they will vote for Trump if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination. This can’t be because they think Trump is a socialist. And I doubt the dislike of Hillary sufficiently explains it either.
I think the explanation lies in this chart:
This trend is well-known among public opinion survey monkeys, and it is worth observing several things. First, the overall decline in public confidence in the competence of the federal government. Second, notice the two places where the trend reverses—during the Reagan years, and right after 9/11, when President Bush and the national government was wholly focused on its chief responsibility: defending the nation. Third, it is conspicuous that there has been no upturn at all under Obama. You’d think he could expect some bump even from a weak economy. If you break down this data by party (see next chart) you can see that Obama doesn’t even get much of a bump up from Democrats.
Finally, look at public opinion about the government from this point of view, which finds that 79 percent of Americans—four out of five—are frustrated or angry with the federal government.
Some observations. First, you’ll note in the first chart that back in the early 1960s, public confidence in the federal government was fairly high, even though liberals told us that the Eisenhower years were dreadful, etc. As James Q. Wilson once pointed out, in 1960 what most people had in front of them was a government that had successfully accomplished some large things: it had won a World War in short order; it had educated millions of troops who came home from that war through the G.I. Bill; it has begun the interstate highway system, an eminently practical undertaking. California built a huge water project (for people back then—imagine that) and other things.
In those days, the government wasn’t trying to solve poverty, promote self-esteem, heal our souls, etc. It[s pretty easy to see that public confidence in the federal government began its long term decline exactly when the government became incompetent at foreign and domestic policy simultaneously. Liberalism has never recovered from this. But neither has the Republican Party ever achieved much serious reform. And the quagmire of the Iraq War under Bush deprived Republicans of an example of the one thing they were supposed to be able to do better than Democrats. (Yes, the surge worked, and we prevailed before Obama threw it away. But it cost too much and came too late to stave off the political damage to Republicans.)
Meanwhile, what do liberals want to build today? No new dams or highways, but high speed rail that no one will ride and urban transit systems (like DC’s Metro) that they can’t maintain. A health care system that remains hated by a majority of Americans. An airport security system that everyone knows is a costly joke. Need I go on? Liberals and the media would like everyone to think that people are disgusted with “gridlock” in Washington (which is only liberal code for saying conservatives should unilaterally disarm so government can do even more things). I don’t think that’s it at all. I think a majority are disgusted with an incompetent government. The mode of public conversation about the federal government is contempt, not frustration that it isn’t doing even more.
Most of the leading candidates of both parties talk about “reform,” but mostly offer mere tinkering. Republicans offer tax cuts; Democrats offer more free stuff. Neither is credible any more. Which brings us to Trump. His difference from the political class is obvious, and has been widely remarked upon, so I won’t repeat that part of the story. Bottom line: we reached a point of such bipartisan disgust with the government that someone like Trump looks like the only kind of person who could conceivably take it on.
One more key political fact, though: We have never elected someone with no prior experience in public office at all to the presidency. (I count being supreme commander of Allied armies in WWII—Eisenhower—as experience in public office. Ditto Grant, etc.) Only once has a major party ever nominated someone from the business world with no experience in public office: Wendell Willkie in 1940. He was a very credible figure, and might have won in the absence of the growing shadow of war.
So might we make Trump the precedent-shattering break from historical practice? We very well might, for the simple reason that only someone who is genuinely an outsider—a way outsider in every way—like Trump stands a chance of restoring some semblance of sensible government. One can imagine a President Trump governing like “President Dave” in the movie from the mid-1990s, and saying “Why do we have 55 federal job training programs? How about eliminating at least two-thirds of them?” Rinse and repeat. In other words, what is required is a disposition much different than Ross Perot’s risible slogan of “getting under the hood and fixin’ it.”
Does Trump understand the nature and magnitude of the problem, and thereby his extraordinary opportunity? I’m doubtful, but he just might kindof, sortof grasp it in his instinctual, elemental way. And his very brashness might be just the kind of approach to accomplishing a few things.
You can find the extensive background to the three charts shown here from the Pew Research Center.
TEHRAN (Tasnim) A top Iranian cleric emphasized that the US remains to be the archenemy of Islam, Iran and Shiism.
“The US is the toughest enemy of Islam and Muslims, and provides financial and military support for those following that path (countering Islam),” Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani said in an address to a gathering of worshippers in Tehran on Friday.
An obvious sign of US hostility towards Muslims is Washington’s full support for Israel, the cleric explained.
Highlighting Washington’s opposition to “an Islamic Iran”, Ayatollah Movahedi Kermani said the US seeks to foment Islamophobia and Iranophobia by attributing acts of terrorism to Islam.
“The US is arrogant and bully, (because) it allows itself to have nuclear weapons, but forbids the other countries to possess even conventional defensive weapons,” the cleric noted.
In comments earlier this month, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei also slammed the US government for its continued hostilities toward Muslims and the Islamic Republic of Iran, saying that Washington is seeking to tarnish the image of Islam, and spread Iranophobia and Shiaphobia.
“Today, Islamophobia, Iranophobia and Shiaphobia, are among the definite policies of the US and its puppet regimes,” the Leader said, adding, “Today, corrupt (terrorist) groups that are committing heinous crimes in the name of Islam are supported by Western powers.”
Imam Khamenei also described the vigilance of Muslim nations, Iranians in particular, against the hegemonic powers’ corrupt acts as the main reason behind such hostilities, saying this is the reason why Iran is threatened to be boycotted when it opposes the US policies in the Middle East.
U.S. Representative Kevin Cramer (R-ND) speaks at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, United States on January 8, 2015. REUTERS/Larry Downing/File Photo
Republican presidential contender Donald Trump has asked one of America’s most ardent drilling advocates and climate change skeptics to help him draft his energy policy.
U.S. Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota – a major oil drilling state – is writing a white paper on energy policy for the New York billionaire, Cramer and sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Cramer was also among a group of Trump advisers who recently met with lawmakers from western energy states, who hope Trump will open more federal land for drilling, a lawmaker who took part in the meeting said.
Cramer said in an interview his paper would emphasize the dangers of foreign ownership of U.S. energy assets, burdensome taxes, and over-regulation. Trump will have an opportunity to float some of the ideas at an energy summit in Bismarck, North Dakota on May 26, Cramer said.
A spokeswoman for Trump’s campaign did not comment.
While the ultimate size and makeup of Trump’s energy advisory team is unclear, Cramer’s inclusion suggests the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s oil policy could emphasize more drilling, less regulation and taxes, and curbs on efforts to combat climate change.
Cramer has said he believes the Earth is cooling, not warming, and he has opposed efforts by the Obama administration to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump has been light on details of his energy policy so far, though he recently told supporters in West Virginia that the coal industry would thrive if he were in the White House. He has also claimed global warming is a concept “created by and for the Chinese” to hurt U.S. business.
Trump only recently started building up teams of advisors on the economy, foreign policy and other issues to flesh out his platform for the Nov. 8 presidential election.
Cramer, North Dakota’s only congressman and an early Congressional Trump supporter, encountered Trump when they were guests on a radio show last month and Trump spoke about relaxing regulation and expanding drilling. Trump’s political team later asked Cramer to write the energy policy paper, the lawmaker said.
“The real opportunity for prosperity in this country has been to produce more because you have access to more markets,” Cramer said, referring to the recent lifting of a decades-old ban on oil exports. “The last thing we need is more rules.”
On foreign ownership of U.S. oil assets, Cramer said: “One-third of refining capacity is owned by OPEC countries. How does this fit into his (Trump’s) America first policy?”
OPEC members Saudi Arabia and Venezuela both have large stakes in U.S. refining capacity.
Cramer said he expected energy policy to be a vulnerability for Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, in an election year where energy companies are going broke.
Clinton has advocated shifting the country to 50 percent clean energy by 2030, promised heavy regulation of fracking, and said her prospective administration would put coal companies “out of business.”
First the good news about Sadiq Khan. In his first act as London’s newly elected Muslim mayor he attended a Holocaust memorial service.
Terrific.
Next we hear that he plans a trip to Israel. This is still good. But after that, and even before that, the news is not so good.
He says that if Trump is elected he won’t come to the United States. (Ain’t that a shame.)
Then he says that if Muslims will be prevented, or limited, from entering the United States there will be consequences. Expect Islamic violence.
If other words, we’re asking for it if we don’t elect someone entirely favorable to the Muslim world. This, of course, excludes Trump and favors Hillary.
But this…
We get Muslim violence regardless who is president, don’t we? We got 9/11 while George W. Bush was in office. Trump was nowhere in sight.
We got Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and other acts of Muslim violence while Obama was in office and no one’s been more favorable to the Muslim cause than Obama – except maybe LBJ. Back in 1965, LBJ signed into law the (Hart-Celler) Immigration and Naturalization Act that opened America’s doors wide open for Muslims.
Trump was nowhere to be seen when a Muslim Palestinian Arab, Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert Kennedy in 1968.
LBJ was president and we already know that LBJ’s heart was in the right place for Islam.
So why Trump, when it’s Mayor Khan who should be in the hot seat. The day after he was declared the winner, buses in London were driving along with signs declaring “Glory to Allah” and we imagine that Hamas were handing out candy in Gaza and likewise the PA in Ramallah.
Where – Trump might ask Mayor Khan – yes where is the Jewish mayor of Islamabad?
Or where is the Christian mayor anywhere in Pakistan, Mayor Khan’s ancestral home?
Let me answer – that’ll be the day.
So while the West celebrates itself for being so elaborately diverse, don’t even dream about diversity anywhere along the world’s 57 Islamic states.
Don’t plan on “Glory to Tolerance” buses running through the Maelbeek neighborhood of Brussels.
Only Western Democracies, like Britain, like the United States, like Israel, are expected to extend hospitality and equality – and we do.
In Israel, the Muslim population numbers more than one and a half million and these Palestinian Arab citizens enjoy full and equal rights.
The number for London alone is about 600,000 – “Glory to Allah.” Except that here’s another question from Trump to Khan.
What about the rape epidemic that’s been sweeping parts of London throughout the years?
Khan needs to answer for his Pakistani countrymen who are alleged to be the dominant assailants against thousands of British women and girls.
No wonder, then, that Trump keeps calling for a pause on migrating Syrian refugees.
Altogether, Trump says, we need to think twice about a Muslim influx. He’s appointing Mayor Rudy Giuliani to study the situation.
Mayor Khan may turn out to be an okay guy.
But he’s no Mayor Rudy, who can still smell the burning flesh from what they came and did to us on 9/11.
And why shouldn’t it be? Obama opened the door with exactly this intention. Enforcement has dropped sharply. The border patrol has been turned into coyotes smuggling in illegals. And here we are.
Through the first six months of fiscal 2016, which ended on March 31, border officials apprehended 27,754 unaccompanied children, the CBP reported — a 78 percent jump from the 15,616 apprehended in 2015, and just shy of the 28,579 apprehended in 2014.
For family units, which consist of at least one child traveling with at least one adult, the increase was even more dramatic. In the first six months of 2016, 32,117 families were apprehended, the CBP reported — an increase of 131 percent from the 2015 figure (13,913) and 62 percent from the 2014 figure (19,830).
Of course this easily backfires into a contribution to the Trump campaign. But the Democrats are counting on transforming illegal migration into a civil rights issue. Quickly followed by legalization and demographic transformation. But a growing sense of crisis at the border could easily turn things around very sharply.
The so-called “mainstream” national media has developed a penchant for focusing on violence originating from certain quarters while all but ignoring hooliganism emanating from others. The disparity in treatment is due primarily to an agenda being pushed by leftist elements within the media establishment including but not limited to, MSNBC and the New York Times.
Violence emanating from Trump supporters buttresses a false narrative that many within the establishment media wish to propagate; namely that Trump’s immigration and border policies are laced with racist undertones. The issue is not framed within the context of securing borders, protecting U.S. citizens from crime and terrorism and curtailing an already overburdened entitlement system for illegals. Rather, Trump’s opponents and their allies in the media have succeeded in framing the issue as one involving racial divisiveness and incitement.
That narrative, displayed over and over again in print as well as social media has succeeded in fueling extreme left-wing violence at Trump rallies far outweighing the violence exhibited by a very limited number of Trump supporters. Yet violence by Trump supporters is still given prominence despite its limited scope and scale. Isolated incidents involving violence at Trump gatherings are given disproportionate coverage far beyond their importance.
Consider the side-by-side contrast of media coverage in two separate instances of violence at Trump rallies. On March 10, a 78-year old senior citizen punched an anti-Trump demonstrator in the face at a Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The action was inexcusable and the perpetrator was arrested and rightfully charged with misdemeanor assault while his victim required no medical attention.
On Thursday and Friday, a large unruly mob of anti-Trump hooligans, some of whom displayed Mexican flags, assembled at the Orange County Fairgrounds in California where a pro-Trump rally was held. The mob quickly resorted to violence, blocking traffic, throwing bricks, ransacking police cars and attacking policemen. One bystander, who had the misfortune of wearing a Trump T-shirt was slugged in the face, knocked to the ground and required several unsightly stitches to close his wound. Several police cars were damaged and a police horse was injured. The resulting damage will reportedly cost the fairgrounds tens of thousands of dollars.
The former case involving the pro-Trump senior citizen made headlines nationally. Video of the incident was shown in an endless loop. Elements within the establishment media made certain to frame the issue as one with racial overtones, since the perpetrator was white and the victim, black. Coverage of the incident – which involved a single punch and no real injury – lasted for weeks with MSNBC and other media commentators noting (falsely) how Trump rallies draw racist crowds. Trump’s supporters were unfairly painted with a broad brush.
In the latter case, while the incident received prominent local media coverage, it lacked the national staying power of the Fayetteville incident even though the resultant violence was far more extreme and damaging. CNN tried to “balance” its reporting of the incident by citing claims by the louts that they were merely there to demonstrate their angst against Trump’s “message of hate.” Vandalism and property damage was justified as a “mere symptom of hate speech.” CNN bent over backward to provide justification or at least understanding of the demonstrators’ baleful actions. No such slack is ever afforded to Trump supporters.
Of course, there was no justification for the violence in Orange County just as there was no justification for the violence in Fayetteville. But for some inexplicable reason, in the eyes of agenda-driven leftist media outlets, not all acts of violence are created equal.
Bullying and hooliganism of the sort that had been characteristic of the radical right has now become part and parcel of tactics employed by the radical left. Whether it’s a professor calling for “some muscle” to eject a student reporter at the University of Missouri or pro-Palestinian activists disrupting a peaceful gathering at San Francisco State University, the methods are becoming more violent and their use, more frequent.
These incidents of radical leftist hooliganism are given mere scant coverage by the leftist media. Often, they are entirely ignored by left-wing media and only belatedly covered after non-mainstream bloggers bring it to the community’s attention by creating a social media storm.
In the case of Trump, it is readily apparent that certain elements within the mainstream media have sacrificed journalistic integrity to advance a particular ideology. It is indeed a sad reflection of the present state of journalism.
A series of posters created by the David Horowitz Freedom Center targeting proponents of the Hamas-inspired and funded Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against the Jewish state have incited a storm of controversy on the San Diego State University campus where hundreds of students swarmed University President Elliot Hirshman to claim that he did not condemn the posters forcefully enough and demanding an apology.
The Freedom Center’s posters identified by name a number of prominent student and faculty BDS activists on the campus and described them as having “allied themselves with Palestinian terrorists to perpetrate BDS and Jew Hatred on this campus.” The posters also contained the hashtag #StopTheJewHatredonCampus, the slogan of the Freedom Center campaign which seeks to confront the agents of campus anti-Semitism and refute the genocidal lies spread by Palestinian terrorists and their campus allies. These lies include the claims that Israel occupies Palestinian land and that Israel is an apartheid state.
Protestors were also incensed by a print ad taken out by the Freedom Center in the Daily Aztec.
The ad states:
There is an epidemic of Jew hatred on American campuses and at San Diego State University. This Jew hatred is incited by Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim Students Association and assorted leftist groups, all of whom support the terrorist organizations Hamas and Fatah.
The ad goes on to explain that both SJP and MSA were created by operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and that both groups “disseminate genocidal lies about Israel whose purpose is to weaken and destroy the world’s only Jewish state.”
Posters for the campaign appeared on five California campuses, including at UCLA and UC-Berkeley, where they also sparked protests from anti-Israel activists, as well as university administrators who falsely characterized them as “hate speech.” Images of all the posters may be viewed here. Accounts of the protests and administrator responses can be read here.
In an email sent to San Diego State’s entire student body on Tuesday, Hirshman criticized the posters but also defended the importance of free speech: “First, we recognize and fully support the rights of all parties to voice their positions on political issues, whether supportive or critical. We also understand that when parties adopt a specific political position they become responsible for their actions and these actions may produce criticism.”
Hirshman’s failure to outright condemn the posters did not sit well with SDSU’s anti-Israel activists and the campus left. The protestors first held a silent protest of Hirshman during the swearing-in ceremony of incoming Associated Students President Jamie Miller. Following that protest, students surrounded a police car in which Hirshman was traveling and detained him for over two hours, chanting “Hirshman, Hirshman, come on out. We have something to talk about.” The Daily Aztec, San Diego State’s campus paper, reported the incident this way:
After leaving the council chambers, protesters got word that Hirshman was in a police cruiser near the Cal Coast Credit Union Open Air Theater, and rushed to “trap” him. The police cruiser was surrounded for over two hours as students chanted and even began praying.
Hirshman eventually got out of the police vehicle and stood to the side, surrounded by members of his administrative staff, who formed a barrier around Hirshman and several leaders of the protest so they could speak.
Photos of the protest taken by the Aztec reveal students holding signs proclaiming “We Demand An Apology” and “Respect My Name.” A large banner hung on a fence adjacent to the protest reads “SDSU THINKS WE ARE TERRORISTS.” Video footage of the protest taken by a local ABC affiliate can be viewed below:
Despite the protestors’ claims to the contrary, it is notable that neither the Freedom Center’s ad nor its posters call SJP and MSA members terrorists. They merely declare that they support anti-Israel terrorists and parrot their propaganda, a claim which any photo of a mock “Israeli apartheid wall” will confirm.
President Hirshman himself confirmed this point while speaking with protestors, saying, “I don’t think they’re saying our students are terrorists. If there was a statement that our students were terrorists and they weren’t, I would certainly condemn that.”
Student activists interviewed by the Aztec defended their actions in detaining President Hirshman. One of the protestors, Hassan Abdinur, who was named on the Freedom Center’s poster as an SJP and MSA activist, stated: “Things have been building up and building up and the university hasn’t done anything so this was our opportunity to kind of stand face-to-face, really close, actually I smelled his breath, with the president of the university and tell him how we feel about what’s going on.”
According to The San Diego Union-Tribune which also reported the story, Hirshman eventually gave the student protestors a brief and nonspecific apology. “If we have done things inadvertently that have upset or hurt people, we are sorry for that,” Hirshman said.
While the protestors finally dispersed following that apology, they remain unsatisfied by Hirshman’s failure to condemn the posters outright. Presumably they were looking for a reaction more in line with UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Jerry Kang who sent an email attacking Horowitz to the entire UCLA community calling the Freedom Center’s posters “repulsive” and “personalized intimidation” and stating that they produce “chilling psychological harm.”
“[We wanted] an apology to the entire student body for his disrespect and disregard for the student voice [and] opinion,” Mustafa Alemi, a member of SDSU’s Associated Students Board of Directors, and also one of the SJP and MSA activists named on the posters, told the Daily Aztec. “Without our tuition money he’s not living the life he has right now and the fact that it took two to three hundred students to block his car to have a conversation with us is incredibly disrespectful.”
David Horowitz is scheduled to speak on SDSU’s campus on May 5th. It will be interesting to see just how respectful the conduct of SJP and MSA activists will be during his address.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
Islamization kills entire civilizations and Islam-induced rigor mortis has stricken much of Europe. Anti-blasphemy, anti-islamophobia and inferior status of women teachings, explicit or inherent in Sharia law, are being enforced. This already very long post does not deal with Islamic terrorism, a related but different topic.
Germany – This Year
“If a woman gets raped walking in public alone, then she, herself, is at fault. She is only seducing men by her presence. She should have stayed home like a Muslim woman.” – Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, Professor of Islamic Law, Saudi Arabia. Source: Front Page Magazine, The Woman Hunt in Germany.
____________________________________
A March 5th article published by The Gatestone Institute commented on Germany’s worsening rape crisis.
A mob of asylum seekers from Afghanistan assaulted three teenage girls at a shopping center in the northern German city of Kiel. The attack — which occurred over two-hours on the evening of February 25, and mirrored the mass assaults of German women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve — shows, once again, that public spaces in Germany are becoming increasingly perilous for women and children.
Police reports show that sexual violence in Germany has skyrocketed since Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East into the country. But the crimes are being played down by German authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Reliable statistics on sexual crimes committed by migrants are notoriously elusive. German authorities have repeatedly been accused of underreporting the true scale of the crime problem in the country. For example, up to 90% of the sex crimes committed in Germany in 2014 do not appear in the official statistics, according to André Schulz, the head of the Association of Criminal Police (Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter, BDK).
On February 25, the newspaper, Die Welt, reported that authorities in the German state of Hesse were suppressing information about migrant-related crimes, ostensibly due to a “lack of public interest.” [Emphasis added.]
On January 24, Die Weltreported that the suppression of data about migrant criminality is a “Germany-wide phenomenon.” According to Rainer Wendt, the head of the German police union (Deutschen Polizeigewerkschaft, DPolG), “Every police officer knows he has to meet a particular political expectation. It is better to keep quiet [about migrant crime] because you cannot go wrong.” [Emphasis added]
On January 22, the newsmagazine Focusreported that the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency (Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes, ADS) put pressure on police in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) to remove a reference to “North African criminal groups” in a press release. According to Focus, the ADS wrote: “There is a danger that people from these countries are placed under a general suspicion. We encourage you to delete the reference to the North African origin from the press release.” NRW Police later removed the offending words because “it could not be excluded that our formulation in the press release could be misunderstood as a discriminatory statement.” Interestingly, the original article by Focus has since been removed from the magazine’s webpage.
Some German commentators are downplaying or rationalizing the growing sexual violence against women and children. According to Jakob Augstein, an influential columnist for the newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Germans worried about migrant crimes are presumably motivated by deep-seated racism. [Emphasis added.]
Here’s a lengthy appendix from the same Gatestone article summarizing migrant rapes and other sexual assaults during January and February of this year. Unfortunately, it’s very long. On many days, there were multiple incidents.
Sexual Assaults and Rapes by Migrants in Germany, January-February 2016.
Gatestone Institute first reported about Germany’s migrant rape epidemic in September 2015. The problem has now spread to cities and towns in all 16 of Germany’s federal states. Following are a few cases from just the first two months of 2016:
January 1. More than a thousand migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of German women in the cities of Cologne, Hamburg and Stuttgart.
January 4. A group of migrant youths sexually assaulted a handicapped girl in Bielefeld.
January 5. An Afghan migrant attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in Burghausen.
January 7. A 36-year-old asylum seeker was arrested for raping a 16-year-old boy inside the city hall of Wolfsburg. A “southerner” (südländisch, arabisch) sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl near a train station in Ellwangen.
January 8. A 17-year-old Syrian migrant exposed himself to women at a swimming pool in St. Ingbert.
January 9. A 48-year-old woman was raped by three migrants in Dresden. The perpetrators have not been arrested. Also on January 9, a 45-year-old woman was sexually assaulted by an “Arab-speaking” man in Gleidingen, a town near Hanover. A group of five North Africans (Algerians, Moroccans)sexually assaulted five women in Oldenburg. Two North African migrants (Libya, Tunisia) sexually assaulted a 31-year-old woman at the main train station in Leipzig. A migrant attempted to rape a 46-year-old woman in Saarbrücken-Altenkessel.
January 10. A group of “southerners” (südländisches Aussehen) sexually assaulted three girls at a public swimming pool in Ansbach. A 21-year-old West African was arrested for raping a 15-year-old girl at a train station in Wuppertal. A 36-year-old Syrian migrant sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Bornhöved. The woman was showing the man an apartment that had been advertised for rent.
January 11. A 35-year-old migrant from Pakistan sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl at a refugee shelter in Kamen. Eight migrants attempted to rape a woman at a grocery store in Ampfing. She defended herself by using pepper spray. A 20-year-old Moroccan assaulted a 24-year-old woman in Frankenberg.
January 12. A “southerner” (südländisch aussehenden) raped a 16-year-old girl in Wuppertal. Two “Arabic speaking” men assaulted a 37-year-old woman in Fröndenberg.
January 13. Four migrants (südländisch aussehen) attempted to rape a 13-year-old girl in Gelsenkirchen. Three migrants sexually assaulted a 31-year-old woman in Oldenburg. A migrant attempted to rape a woman at a train station in Altötting. She defended herself by using pepper spray. Three “southerners” (südländischer oder arabischer Herkunft) assaulted a woman in Bad Münstereifel.
January 14. Three migrants (südländische Hautfarbe) sexually assaulted a 47-year-old woman in the Bavarian town of Dingolfing. Three “southerners” (Südländer) assaulted a 22-year-old women on a train in Bremerhaven.
January 15. A 36-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl at a public park in Hilden near Solingen. A 31-year-old migrant from Tunisia was arrested for attempting to rape a 30-year-old woman in Chemnitz. A 31-year-old migrant from Morocco appeared in court for raping a 31-year-old woman in Dresden. A migrant sexually assaulted a 42-year-old woman inMainz. A migrant (dunkleren Teint) sexually assaulted a 32-year-old woman in Münchfeld. An African migrant sexually assaulted a 55-year-old woman in Mannheim.
Also on January 15, all male migrants over the age of 18 were banned from a public swimming pool in Bornheim, near Bonn, after assaults against female patrons at the facility. The measure was branded as racist by German media outlets.
January 16. A migrant from Syria sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl inMudersbach. A 36-year-old migrant sexually assaulted an eight-year-old girl in Mettmann. A 36-year-old migrant assaulted an 8-year-old girl in Hilden. A 19-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted four girls between the ages of 11 and 13 at an indoor swimming pool in Dresden. The migrant was arrested but then released. A 25-year-old Moroccan migrant assaulted two woman at a grocery store in Zeithain.
January 17. Three “southerners” (Südländer) attempted to rape a young woman in Kiel. Two migrants (19 and 38 years old) sexually assaulted a 21-year-old woman at a restaurant in the main train station in Nuremberg. A 19-year-old Afghan migrant assaulted four girls (aged 11 to 13) at a public swimming pool in Dresden. Migrants invaded female changing rooms at a swimming pool in Burghausen. Two “southerners” (dunklen/südländischen Typ) attempted to rape a 42-year-old woman at a pharmacy in Altötting.
January 18. A 43-year-old Syrian migrant assaulted a 63-year-old woman inWetzlar. Police say the man also assaulted two other women (aged 62 and 74) in Wetzlar.
January 19. A 17-year-old Eritrean migrant attempted to rape an 18-year-old woman in a parking garage in Bad Oldesloe. After police intervened, the man head-butted an officer, who was hospitalized.
January 20. Migrants invaded female showers and changing rooms at two public swimming pools in Leipzig.
January 21. A “black skinned” (schwarz glänzende Hautfarbe) man attempted to rape a 13-year-old girl in Langenfeld. Two migrants assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Dingolfing.
January 22. A migrant (südländisches Äußeres) attempted to rape a 16-year-old girl in Feuerbach district of Stuttgart, and in downtown Stuttgart, four “Arabic looking” (arabisches Aussehen) men sexually assaulted a 23-year-old woman. Migrants harassed women at public swimming pools in Zwickau.
January 23. Migrants sexually assaulted two 11-year-old girls at a public swimming pool inWilhelmshaven. Two asylum seekers from Afghanistanassaulted two 17-year-old women at a public swimming pool in Straubing. Three 16-year-old migrants from Afghanistan and Syria assaulted two 13-year-old girls at a public swimming pool in Hachenburg.
Also on January 23, a 35-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a woman in a restroom on a train inDüsseldorf. A 22-year-old Syrian migrant exposed himself on a train in Hanover. An 18-year-old Syrian asylum seeker raped a 17-year-old woman in Straubing. Two unidentified men sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Wiesbaden.
January 24. Two men speaking “broken German” attempted to rape a 25-year-old woman in Lehrte as she was walking home from the train station. The men pulled a knife on the woman and ordered her to “spread your legs.”
January 25. A 30-year-old migrant from “North Africa” (nordafrikanischem Erscheinungsbild) exposed himself to a 19-year-old woman on a public bus inMarburg, and then to passersby at the main train station.
January 26. A 35-year-old migrant attempted to rape a young girl in Bochum. Two female passersby intervened and called police.
January 27. Two “southerners” (dunklem Teint) sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl at a bus stop in Überlingen. A 21-year-old asylum seeker assaulted an 18-year-old woman in a female changing room at a fitness studio in Lahr.
January 28. A migrant from Sudan sexually assaulted a female police officer in Hanover as she was attempting to arrest him for theft. Two “underage refugees” (minderjährige Flüchtlinge) sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl at a shelter for children in Düsseldorf. It later emerged that one of the perpetrators was a 22-year-old migrant from Iran who claimed he was 16 years old to gain access to the shelter. A 17-year-old Afghan migrant assaulted a 14-year-old girl in Frankenberg. A “southerner” (Südländer) sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Backnang.
January 31. A 30-year-old German, originally from Turkmenistan, raped a seven-year-old girl in Kiel. The man kidnapped the girl from a school playground at 11 AM, took her to his apartment and, after abusing her, set her free. It later emerged that the man had been accused of sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl at another kindergarten in Kiel on January 18, but due to insufficient evidence, the public prosecutors failed to pursue the case.
Also on January 31, four unidentified migrants (ausländischem Aussehen)sexually assaulted a 17-year-old woman in Vilshofen. An unidentified “dark skinned” (dunkelhäutig) man assaulted a woman in Villingen. Two North African migrants sexually assaulted two 15-year-old girls inSalzgitter.
February 1. A 40-year-old asylum seeker from Syria kissed a 7-year-old boy at a bus stop in Gaildorf.
February 2. Two “dark skinned” (dunklere Gesichtsfarbe) men assaulted a 31-year-old woman, who was nine months pregnant, in the parking lot of a supermarket in Schweinfurt. A 26-year-old migrant using several different identities assaulted three women on a train in Berlin. Two “dark skinned” (dunklem Hauttyp) men assaulted a 14-year-old girl on a school bus in Eslohe.
February 3. Three Afghan migrants sexually assaulted two 14-year-old girls from France at a public swimming pool in Munich. A 16-year-old migrantassaulted a 16-year-old girl at a swimming pool in Heidenheim. An 18-year-old Libyan migrant attempted to rape a 25-year-old woman in Leipzig. A “southern looking man” (südländisch aussehend) exposed himself to passengers on a regional train in Harburg.
February 4. A 29-year-old migrant from Nigeria raped a 21-year-old woman at a carnival celebration in Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock. A 25-year-old asylum seeker from Syria assaulted two women at the same carnival. More than 20 women were sexually assaulted during carnival celebrations in Cologne. A Syrian migrant sexually assaulted a 49-year-old woman after a carnival in Bad Reichenhall. A 29-year-old migrant assaulted a woman after a carnival in Dinslaken.
Also on February 4, an African migrant (Schwarzafrikaner) assaulted a woman at a supermarket in Lörrach. When police arrived, the man assaulted the officers, who needed backup to subdue him. Police have been unable to determine the man’s identity; he was carrying a fake ID. An Eritrean migrant who assaulted two women in Zeithain was freed after a judge determined the man was drunk when he committed the crimes. A “southerner” (Südländer)assaulted a young woman in Elsfleth.
February 5. Groups of North African migrants assaulted women at carnival celebrations in downtown Cologne. Two migrants sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Straubing. A migrant assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Villingen-Schwenningen. Two “Arabic looking” (arabisch aussehend) men assaulted a 13-year-old girl in Klietz.
February 6. A group of 30 migrants attempted to rape an 18-year-old woman in Mühldorf am Inn, a town in Bavaria. Three Afghan migrants were arrested for sexually assaulting several women at a carnival celebrations on in Laufenburg. A 28-year-old Iraqi migrant assaulted a woman after a carnival in Bocholt. A 24-year-old migrant assaulted two 15-year-old girls at a carnival celebration in Badorf. A 48-year-old Jordanian migrant assaulted a 16-year-old girl at a carnival parade in Frankfurt. “Five or six” migrants assaulted a 25-year-old woman after carnival celebrations in Cologne. Several “foreigners” (Ausländer) assaulted “numerous” women at a carnival in Konstanz.
Also on February 6, a “southerner” (südländisches Aussehen) sexually assaulted a 19-year-old man in Ravensburg. Four “southerners” (südländisches Aussehen) assaulted and robbed two girls (13 and 14 years old) near the main train station in Bochum. A migrant (dunklen Teint) assaulted a woman in Friedrichstadt. Five migrants sexually assaulted an 11-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Celle.
February 7. A 24-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted two teenage girls at a carnival in Rietberg. Three “Arab looking” (arabisches Aussehen) men sexually assaulted several women at a carnival in Mainz. Two “dark skinned men” (dunkelhäutige Männer) sexually assaulted a 31-year-old woman at a carnival in Gütersloh. Four Afghan migrants were arrested for assaulting two 14-year-old girls at carnival celebrations in Erfurt. Four Afghan migrants sexually assaulted a 17-year-old woman in Heppenheim. Several women were assaulted at a carnival in Hardheim. A 21-year-old Moroccan migrant sexually assaulted a woman at a carnival in Kranenburg. Two “dark skinned” (dunkelhäutig) men assaulted two women at a carnival in Flieden.
Also on February 7, a 17-year-old Afghan migrant sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl at a public swimming pool in Landshut. A 16-year-old migrant from Afghanistan sexually assaulted several women at Schillerplatz, a large public square in downtown Mainz. A “dark skinned” (dunklem Hauttyp) man sexually assaulted a 17-year-old woman in Backnang. Three “southern looking” (südländischem Aussehen) assaulted a woman in Offenburg. A group of “dark skinned” (dunklen Teint) migrants sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Ochtrup.
Also on February 7, a “dark skinned” (dunkelhäutig) man sexually assaulted a 24-year-old woman in Mühldorf. Five migrants assaulted a 15-year-old girl in Bernburg. A “southerner” (südländisches Aussehen) assaulted a 37-year-old woman on a bus in Bochum. Two “southerners” (zwei Südländer) sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman on an express train in Stuttgart. A “southerner” (südländisch Aussehen) assaulted a 39-year-old woman near the train station in Dresden. A migrant assaulted a 46-year-old woman inEppelheim.
February 8. A 35-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl at a carnival in Siegburg. Two Moroccans assaulted a 36-year-old woman at a carnival in Brilon. Three migrants assaulted a 49-year-old woman in Andechs.
February 9. North African migrants assaulted a 19-year-old woman during carnival revelry in Opladen, a district of Leverkusen. Several “southerners” (Südländer) assaulted a 23-year-old woman in a supermarket parking lot in Göttingen. Four migrants sexually assaulted three 13-year-old girls at a public swimming pool in Borghorst.
February 11. A 36-year-old asylum seeker raped a 14-year-old girl in Braunschweig.
February 12. A “dark skinned” (dunkle Teint) sexually assaulted a boy at a swimming pool in Nordenham. A migrant assaulted a boy at a swimming pool in Nordenham. Three “dark skinned” (dunkle Hautfarbe) men assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Füssen.
February 13. Several migrants assaulted three girls (aged between 10 and 11) at a swimming pool in Norden. A migrant assaulted a 49-year-old woman in a bakery in Gütersloh.
February 14. Two migrants from Iran and Syria assaulted two girls (aged 10 and 11) at a public swimming pool in Dresden. Four migrants assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Duisburg. Migrants assaulted several women at a discotheque in Mengeringhausen.
February 15. A 17-year-old North African assaulted several women at the main train station in Bremen. A 23-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted a 14-year-old girl on metro train in Frankfurt. Four “dark skinned” (Dunkelhäutige) men assaulted a 35-year-old woman in Künzelsau.
February 16. An “Arabic looking” man assaulted a 14-year-old girl on a bus in Dörzbach.
February 17. A man with a “dark complexion” (dunklem Hautteint) exposed himself to passersby in the Biebrich district of Wiesbaden. A “14 or 15-year-old” boy with “dark skin” (dunkler Teint) exposed himself to several women at a traffic light in Hörstel. Two “southerners” (südländischem Aussehen) assaulted a 25-year-old woman in Dresden.
February 18. Three “southern looking” (südländische Erscheinung) men attempted to rape a woman in Uelzen. At least one of the men was attacked by the woman’s Rottweiler.
February 20. A 34-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker assaulted two girls, aged 13 and 14, at a supermarket in Rotenburg. Two “dark skinned” (dunklen Teint) men speaking broken German raped a 49-year-old woman near a cemetery in Biberach. A 51-year-old Bosnian migrant was arrested for repeatedly raping a 17-year-old woman in the Feuerbach district of Stuttgart. Two “dark brown skinned” males sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Trier. A 28-year-old Afghan migrant attempted to rape a woman in Blankenburg. A “dark skinned” (dunklen Teint) man sexually assaulted a 23-year-old man in Greven.
February 21. Seven migrants from Afghanistan and Iran invaded female changing rooms at a public swimming pool in Aurich. A 35-year-old Syrian migrant assaulted a 14-year-old girl at a pool in Eckernförde. An unidentified migrant raped a 21-year-old woman at the train station in Bad Schwartau. A 44-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a 29-year-old female volunteer at a refugee shelter in Großenlüder. A “southerner” (südländisches Aussehen) assaulted a 14-year-girl on a train in Neubrandenburg. Several days later, the same girl was attacked by the same suspect at a playground in the city.
February 22. A man “speaking German with a foreign accent” sexually assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Asperg. A “southerner” (südländischer Typ) assaulted a 16-year-old girl in Feldkirchen. Two “Turkish or Arab” man attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl in Brandenburg.
February 23. A 16-year-old migrant who raped two boys (9 and 11 years of age) in the town of Glöwen was released from jail. A judge ruled that because the suspect lives with his parents and has no money, he does not pose a flight risk. A 34-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted two women (17 and 22 years of age) at a subway station in Berlin. A migrant touched himself in front of a 19-year-old woman on a public bus in Chemnitz. A migrant touched himself in front of a 21-year-old woman on a subway train in Chemnitz.
February 24. A 31-year-old Nigerian asylum seeker sexually assaulted a 21-year-old woman in a church in Weilheim. Police say the man previously assaulted another woman in the same church. He also assaulted two women in the town hall and another woman at a nursing home. A “southerner” (südländischem Äußeren) assaulted an 18-year-old woman in Kassel.
February 25. A dark skinned (südländische Hautfarbe) man assaulted two girls (13 and 15 years of age) on a city bus in the Mockau-Nord district of Leipzig. An “African” (afrikanischen Typ) man assaulted a 48-year-old woman on a tram in Leipzig.
February 26. Two Afghan migrants were accused of raping a 24-year-old woman in Magdeburg. A 29-year-old man was arrested for assaulting several women at the train station in Mülheim an der Ruhr. A 20-year-old asylum seeker assaulted a 20-year-old woman in Landau.
February 28. Two Afghan migrants (aged 14 and 34) raped two girls (aged 14 and 18) at a public swimming pool in Norderstedt. Two Afghan migrants sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman in Mannheim. A “southerner” (südländischer Typ) assaulted a 46-year-old woman in front of the city hall in Schwarzenbach. A 19-year-old Algerian migrant assaulted a 21-year-old woman in Hamm
Germany’s Islamic hordes are not shy. Here’s a video of Turkish Muslims in Germany shouting that they will conquer Germany. Perhaps they have already.
The anti-immigrant AfD made strong gains in three regional elections last month, profiting from public fears over an influx of more than one million migrants and refugees who arrived last year. [Emphasis added.]
Another AfD deputy leader, Alexander Gauland, has warned of an “Islamisation of Germany” and said that “Islam is not a religion like Catholic or Protestant Christianity but intellectually always associated with the takeover of the state”.
The secretary general of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, warned that such statements are “contrary to European values”.
“It is right and necessary to have a debate about important issues like integration and education, but to depict Islam as a threat to our society is wrong and hurtful to millions of European Muslims,” he said in a statement. [Emphasis added.]
Shut up, he explained.
“We need to strengthen the respect for common values in Europe, not to create new divisions in society.”
Merkel’s top spokesman Steffen Seibert reiterated Monday the government’s often-stated position that “Islam is now, without doubt, a part of Germany”.
Germany is home to four million Muslims, and many of the country’s most recent arrivals adhere to the faith. [Emphasis added.]
In a cold world, President Barack Obama has found some warmth in Germany.
For the famously reserved commander in chief, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has become his closest global partner, an alliance-turned-friendship forged by mutual political interests and parallel personalities.
Obama arrived in Hanover, Germany, on Sunday to lend Merkel his backing as she faces political blowback over her stance on refugees fleeing war in Syria, a position Obama praised as a matter of moral fortitude.
“She’s on the right side of history on this,” Obama said alongside his German counterpart Sunday, praising Merkel for confronting some “very tough politics” in opening her country’s borders to nearly a million migrants last year. [Emphasis added.]
Officers first advised women not to walk alone at night after a rash of reports of violence against women by migrants.
“Now the police are going out and warning women against travelling alone in the city [altogether]. We have seen a worrying trend,” said regional police chief Stephen Jerand. “This is serious, we care about the protection of women and that is why we are going out and talking about this.”
Prior to the warning, women in Östersund, a picturesque, lakeside town in central Sweden, were subjected to six (recorded) attacks in the two weeks following Feb. 20. All the attacks were perpetrated by gangs of foreign men, ranging from violent assaults while attempting to rape women on the city’s streets to a groping attack of a group of 10-year old girls waiting at a bus stop.
Sweden took in 163,000 migrants last year alone, the highest percentage of migrants per capital than any other European country. The country, which offers one of the best packages of benefits to the newcomers, just recently imposed regulations to limit the number of immigrants pouring through their borders. [Emphasis added.]
615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.
In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.
On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.
Thirty-nine percent of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5% for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of women accused of adultery.
The poll also found that a fifth of British Muslims have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.
Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims.
In an essay for the Sunday Times, Trevor Phillips, the host of the documentary and a former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, warned of a growing “chasm” between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain that “isn’t going to disappear any time soon.”
Phillips wrote that the poll reveals “the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future.” He added: “I thought Europe’s Muslims would gradually blend into the landscape. I should have known better.”
Phillips was referring to his rather ignominious role in commissioning the 1997 report, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All.” Also known as the Runnymede Report, the document popularized the term “Islamophobia” in Britain and had a singular role in silencing criticism of mass immigration from the Muslim world. Twenty years later, Phillips now concedes that he has had a change of heart.
Formerly Great Britain, as a member of the European Union, has little choice as to whether or how many Muslim immigrants to accept. On April 22, Obama advised Britain to remain in the European Union. He said,
We just discussed, for example, the refugee and the migration crisis. And I’ve told my team — which is sitting right here, so they’ll vouch for me — that we consider it a major national security issue that you have uncontrolled migration into Europe — not because these folks are coming to the United States, but because if it destabilizes Europe, our largest trading bloc — trading partner — it’s going to be bad for our economy. If you start seeing divisions in Europe, that weakens NATO. That will have an impact on our collective security. [Emphasis added.]
He did not comment on the extent to which migration to Europe is uncontrolled.
Now, if, in fact, I want somebody who’s smart and common sense, and tough, and is thinking, as I do, in the conversations about how migration is going to be handled, somebody who also has a sense of compassion, and recognizes that immigration can enhance, when done properly, the assets of a country, and not just diminish them, I want David Cameron in the conversation. [Emphasis added.]
Obama offered no insights as to when or how the EU might get around to dealing with immigration “properly” and hence enhance the assets of member nations. The situation continues to worsen.
Obama’s hypocrisy has been noted. Back before the nuke “deal” with Iran was made, Obama criticized Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for offering his views on the proposed “deal” to the Congress at the invitation of House Speaker Boehner.
[T]he British are expected to decide via referendum whether or not to remain a part of the European Union. During his recent visit to England, Obama spoke out strongly against Britain’s potential separation from the EU. This was a crude and disproportionate effort to meddle in another state’s affairs — an expression of his desire to evade blame for the collapse of the European Union. In his mind, British citizens are expected to forgo their opinions and best interests in favor of his legacy.
It is therefore unclear why Obama unleashed his fury at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when the latter made tireless efforts to convince Congress and the American public not be deceived by the dangerous nuclear deal. How much hypocrisy does it take to allow yourself to do things that you reprimand others for doing? Immanuel Kant saw this kind of behavior as a basic moral failure. Luckily for Britain’s citizens, Obama cannot veto their decision.
Conclusions
The Islamisation of Europe is bad for its citizens, as many of them have recognized to the displeasure of its “mainstream” politicians. Those who opposed Islamisation are disparaged as “Islamophobic.”
Despite the continuing and increasing although mainly illegal influx of immigrants, America has thus far not lost most of her freedoms. However, they have already been endangered and degraded by Obama’s persistent catering to Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and it many Islamist affiliates.
These pathways can take many forms: not only resettlement, but also more flexible mechanisms for family reunification, including extended family members, labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons. Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well. [Emphasis added.]
Here’s a link to an article about what Muslims are being taught in many private Islamic schools in America. According to their text books, there is no Israel, only Palestine. Christians are of the very lowest possible status and are forbidden from entering Heaven. What would Obama say if Christian and Jews were provided comparable education about Muslims?
Are Obama and the European nations which have succumbed to Islamisation following Andrew Klavan’s suggestions in this video that Muslims be treated as sub-humans with no moral agency? It seems that they are, so why not acknowledge it?
In addition to the Twin Cities, Somali Muslim immigrants to Minnesota have settled in rural areas such as St. Cloud, Mankato and Willmar. Concern about the continuing waves of immigration from Somalia in particular is not confined to the Twin Cities. Thus Matt McKinney’s Star Tribune contribution to stifling discussion of the related issues in “Anti-Muslim speaking circuit runs through rural Minnesota.”
McKinney’s piece is pitiful. It presents all related concerns as manifestations of “Islamophobia.” It calls on Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, to render his opinion as an impartial expert. McKinney quotes Hussein: “A lot of these fears are coming from that type of general fear of the ‘other,’ and not real knowledge of Islam.”
I would say “a lot of these fears are coming from” Somali Minnesotans’ support for foreign terrorist organizations waging jihad. The support is manifested in the charges brought against the “Minnesota men” seeking to join ISIS in 2014 and 2015. Somali community sentiment is itself apparently supportive of the “Minnesota men” if not the cause. Rather than investigate the possibly rational causes of the “fears,” McKinney simply presents the concerns as evidence of bigotry.
McKinney revisits the Dorsey & Whitney conference on “Islamophobia” in Minnesota last week. He recites that those in attendance included former Vice President Walter Mondale and members of the legal community, including U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger. McKinney quotes Luger in classic form, saying that, left unchecked, “Islamaphobia is going to destroy the social fabric of the state.” Shut up, he explained.
McKinney does not know that CAIR itself is part of the problem. CAIR, however, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and it aims to silence critics of Islamic supremacism via useful idiots such as McKinney. Andrew McCarthy devoted a particularly useful chapter of The Grand Jihad to CAIR. NR has posted an adapted excerpt of it here.
The Muslim Brotherhood — they’re Islamic, right? Hamas — Islamic, right? It’s a shame McKinney didn’t even try to get a straight answer from the local CAIR leader. He might have learned somethings from the exercise.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments