♦ Of all French soldiers currently engaged in military operations, half of them are deployed inside France. And half of those are assigned to protect 717 Jewish schools.
♦ This massive deployment of armed forces in our own cities is a departure from history. It is a moral disarmament, before a military one.
♦ Why does anyone choose to fight in a war? Civilized nations go to war so that members of today’s generation may sacrifice themselves to protect future generations. But if there are no future generations, there is no reason whatever for today’s young men to die in war. It is “demography, stupid.”
On March 11, 2004, 192 people were killed and 1,400 wounded in a series of terrorist attacks in Madrid. Three days later, Spain’s Socialist leader, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, was elected prime minister. Just 24 hours after being sworn in, Zapatero ordered Spanish troops to leave Iraq “as soon as possible.”
The directive was a monumental political victory for extremist Islam. Since then, Europe’s boots on the ground have not been dispatched outside Europe to fight jihadism; instead, they have been deployed inside the European countries to protect monuments and civilians.
“Opération Sentinelle” is the first new large-scale military operation within France. The army is now protecting synagogues, art galleries, schools, newspapers, public offices and underground stations. Of all French soldiers currently engaged in military operations, half of them are deployed inside France. And half of those are assigned to protect 717 Jewish schools. Meanwhile, French paralysis before ISIS is immortalized by the image of police running away from the office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo during the massacre there.
French soldiers guard a Jewish school in Strasbourg, February 2015. (Image source: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)
You can find the same figure in Italy: 11,000 Italian soldiers are currently engaged in military operations and more than half of them are used in operation “Safe Streets,” which, as its name reveals, keeps Italy’s cities safe. Italy’s army is also busy providing aid to migrants crossing the Mediterranean.
In 2003, Italy was one of the very few countries, along with Spain and Britain, which stood with the United States in its noble war in Iraq — a war that was successful until the infamous US pull-out on December 18, 2011.
Today, Italy, like Spain, runs away from its responsibility in the war against the Islamic State. Italy’s Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti ruled out the idea of Italy taking part in action against ISIS, after EU defense ministers unanimously backed a French request for help.
Italy’s soldiers, stationed in front of my newspaper’s office in Rome, provide a semblance of security, but the fact that half of Italy’s soldiers are engaged in domestic security, and not in offensive military strikes, should give us pause. These numbers shed a light not only on Europe’s internal terror frontlines, from the French banlieues to “Londonistan.” These numbers also shed light on the great Western retreat.
US President Barack Obama has boasted that as part of his legacy, he has withdrawn American military forces from the Middle East. His shameful departure from Iraq has been the main reason that the Islamic State rose to power — and the reason Obama postponed a military withdrawal from Afghanistan. This US retreat can only be compared to the fall of Saigon, with the picture of a helicopter evacuating the U.S. embassy.
In Europe, armies are no longer even ready for war. The German army is now useless, and Germany spends only 1.2% of GDP on defense. The German army today has the lowest number of staff at any time in its history.
In 2012, Germany’s highest court, breaking a 67-year-old taboo against using the military within Germany’s borders, allowed the military to be deployed in domestic operations. The post-Hitler nation’s fear that the army could develop again into a state-within-a-state that might impede democracy has paralyzed Europe’s largest and wealthiest country. Last January, it was revealed that German air force reconnaissance jets cannot even fly at night.
Many European states slumber in the same condition as Belgium, with its failed security apparatus. A senior U.S. intelligence officer even recently likened the Belgian security forces to “children.” And Sweden’s commander-in-chief, Sverker Göranson, said his country could only fend off an invasion for a maximum of one week.
During the past ten years, the United Kingdom has also increasingly been seen by its allies — both in the US and in Europe — as a power in retreat, focusing only on its domestic agenda. The British have become increasingly insular – a littler England.
The UK’s armed forces have been downsized; the army alone is expected to shrink from 102,000 soldiers in 2010 to 82,000 by 2020 – its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. The former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Nigel Essenigh, has spoken of “uncomfortable similarities” between the UK’s defenses now and those in the early 1930s, during the rise of Nazi Germany.
In Canada, military bases are now being used to host migrants from Middle East. Justin Trudeau, the new Canadian prime minister, first halted military strikes against ISIS, then refused to join the coalition against it. Terrorism has apparently never been a priority for Trudeau — not like “gender equality,” global warming, euthanasia and injustices committed against Canada’s natives.
The bigger question is: Why does anyone choose to fight in a war? Civilized nations go to war so that members of today’s generation may sacrifice themselves to protect future generations. But if there are no future generations, there is no reason whatever for today’s young men to die in war. It is “demography, stupid.”
Spain‘s fertility has fallen the most — the lowest in Western Europe over twenty years and the most extreme demographic spiral observed anywhere. Similarly, fewer babies were born in Italy in 2015 than in any year since the state was founded 154 years ago. For the first time in three decades, Italy’s population shrank. Germany, likewise, is experiencing a demographic suicide.
This massive deployment of armed forces in our own cities is a departure from history. It is a moral disarmament, before a military one. It is Europe’s new Weimar moment, from the name of the first German Republic that was dramatically dismantled by the rise of Nazism. The Weimar Republic still represents a cultural muddle, a masterpiece of unarmed democracy devoted to a mutilated pacifism, a mixture of naïve cultural, political reformism and the first highly developed welfare state.
According to the historian Walter Laqueur, Weimar was the first case of the “life and death of a permissive society.” Will Europe’s new Weimar also be brought down, this time by Islamists?
♦ Each of these politicians accused of anti-Semitism was voted into power by an electorate who knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views, they would not have been elected.
♦ “Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.” — Mehdi Hasan, British Muslim political journalist.
♦ The consequences of Western politicians’ continued weakness and appeasement are far greater than encouraging anti-Semitism and undermining the State of Israel. It is the fatal and irreversible descent of their own countries.
Battle-hardened British soldiers were moved to tears by the horrors they witnessed at the Nazi charnel house of Bergen-Belsen when they liberated the concentration camp in April 1945. Yet seventy years after thousands of troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march across Europe.
In just one week, a British student leader, a Labour Party constituency MP, a London council leader, a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee and even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all been accused of being mired in Jew-hatred.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Each of these people was voted into power by an electorate that knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views they would not have been elected.
All are on the political left, but the problem does not stop there. The cancer of Jew-hatred today spreads from right to left throughout European nations and in all supranational bodies including the European Union and the United Nations. It is led by politicians, human rights groups and the media, whose contorted worldview has contaminated ordinary people on a scale unimaginable possibly even to the arch-propagandist Dr. Josef Goebbels himself.
Seventy years after thousands of British troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march. Left: A British soldier talks to an emaciated prisoner after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen in April 1945. Right: An anti-Israel protestor in London holds up a sign saying “Hitler you were right,” in July 2014.
In the 21st Century, outside the Middle East, it is hard to express hatred of Jews publicly. So Jew-haters everywhere have adopted a proxy: the Jewish state. Israel is the acceptable target of their hate. That is why Labour MP Naz Shah’s “solution,” with chilling echoes of Reinhard Heydrich, was to “transport” all the Jews out of Israel, with the obvious implication that this would be done forcibly and violently.
It is why National Union of Students President Malia Bouattia advocated violence against Israel and accused the international media of being “Zionist-led.” It is why Muhammed Butt, a London Labour council leader, shared a Facebook post denouncing Israel as “a terrorist state like ISIS.” It is why former London Mayor and Labour National Executive member Ken Livingstone sought to discredit Zionism by his assertion that Hitler supported it.
Where does all this hatred come from? Its long lineage begins with the Muslim prophet Muhammed and its modern form pre-dates Hitler. Back in the 1920s and 30s, murderous Arab gangs attacked Jewish communities in post-Ottoman, British Mandated Palestine and tried to drive them into the sea. They were stopped by Britain’s Captain Orde Wingate, who taught the Jews to defend themselves, fighting alongside British troops.
A few years later Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, made a deal with Hitler to bring the final solution to the Middle East, but the German advance was halted in its tracks at El Alamein by General Montgomery’s Eighth Army. As soon as the State of Israel was established, 68 years ago this month, by resolution of the United Nations, five Arab armies fell on her with the intent of annihilation. They failed, and ever since have been trying to destroy the Jewish state by military assault and terrorism in all its forms.
Recognizing their collective inability to eliminate Jews from their historic homeland by force, the Arabs have waged a pernicious and all-pervading propaganda war to demonize the Jewish State. Their lies have included the blatant falsehoods that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal under international law; that the Israeli government operates an oppressive apartheid state; that the IDF is strangling Gaza under an unprovoked and illegal siege; that successive Israeli administrations have been the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East; and that Israeli security forces deliberately murder innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
Understanding that the might of the pen is magnified by the flash of the sword, the Palestinian leadership and their Iranian paymasters have frequently used violence to seize international attention. Provoking the Israelis into killing Palestinian people to ensure global condemnation was the true purpose behind the Gaza rocket wars and the recent wave of murderous knife attacks and car-rammings.
Why does the West pander to this religiously inspired hatred and bigotry? There are three fundamental reasons. First, Europe especially is consumed by imperial guilt. Those that are seen to have been historically oppressed and exploited can today do no wrong; Westerners must prostrate themselves at their feet.
Second, every European country depends on Arab oil for its continued existence and relishes the return of its petrodollars through arms sales and massive investment into their economies.
Third, Western governments understand the power of their ever-increasing Islamic populations. They fear the extremism of those who reject Western values and want to violently replace them with the ways of Islamic sharia law. And they calculate the mathematics of the Muslim vote at the ballot box.
They know that among these communities there is widespread and innate hatred of Jews and of Israel. Mehdi Hasan, a British Muslim political journalist, has confirmed: “anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.” Our politicians believe that by appeasement they will satiate the blood lust of the jihadists and gain the support of Muslim voters.
This is why we see Western leaders condemning Israel for insufficient restraint while defending itself from lethal Hamas rockets, when they know full well Israel has done all it can to avoid civilian deaths. It is why not one single EU member state had the courage to vote against the false condemnation of Israel for war crimes in the UN Human Rights Council last year. It is why the British government unequivocally asserts that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal when it knows they are not. It is why Prime Minister David Cameron, a friend and supporter of the Jewish state, accused Israel of turning the Gaza Strip into a ‘prison camp’ when he knew it had not.
These false and malicious condemnations fuel hatred of Israel and of Jewish people everywhere. They are driven and intensified by a media that is dominated by strident, virulent and unyielding anti-Israel bias.
What of the future? Imperial guilt in Europe shows no sign of diminishing. In fact, the ideology behind it is gaining strength as the EU seeks to undermine national identity in its drive for ever-closer union and the creation of a superstate.
Despite developing energy technologies, there is no prospect of significantly reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the foreseeable future. And with the vast influx of refugees from Muslim countries into Europe, the urge to appease their anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes can only increase dramatically.
This means Israel and the Jews are going to come under even more intolerable pressure, leading to a greater exodus of Jews from many Western nations and the increasing international isolation of the Jewish state.
But there is an alternative. It is that Western political leaders find the courage to reject the virulent anti-Israel prejudice. To speak what they know to be the truth about the situation in the Middle East. To stop encouraging Palestinian leaders to believe their campaign against Israel is going to achieve its goal of destroying the Jewish state. And rather than supporting Palestinian hate with Western dollars, to impose sanctions against their racist and destructive behaviour.
The consequences of Western politicians’ continued weakness and appeasement are far greater than encouraging anti-Semitism and undermining the State of Israel. It is the fatal and irreversible descent of their own countries. By allowing this anti-Semitic hatred, they are betraying the millions of citizens who have fought and died to oppose the sort of malevolent ideologies that are now incubating it.
♦ A new poll of British Muslims found that a majority hold views with which most British people would disagree. For instance, 52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be made illegal. An earlier poll found that 27% of British Muslims have “some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks” at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last year.
♦ Whenever opinion poll results come out, nearly the entire Muslim community, including nearly all Muslims in the media and all self-appointed groups of “Muslim community leaders” try to prove that the poll is a fraud.
♦ If I had always known my “community” harboured such views, and a poll revealing this truth came out, I would be deeply ashamed. But when such polls emerge about the opinions of British Muslims, is that there is never any hint of introspection. There is no shame and no concern, only attack.
♦ If there were indeed a “moderate majority,” when a poll comes out saying that a quarter of your community wants fundamentally to alter the law of the land and live under Sharia, the other 75% would spend their time trying to change the opinions of that quarter. Instead, about 74% of the 75% not in favour of sharia spend their time covering for the 25% and attacking the polling company which discovered them.
One often hears about the “moderate Muslim majority.” ‘After any terrorist attack, politicians tell us that, “The moderate majority of Muslims utterly condemn this.” After any outrage, commentators and pundits spring up to say, “Of course the vast majority of Muslims are moderate.” But is it true? Are the vast majority of Muslims really “moderate”?
A number of factors suggest perhaps not — most obviously the problem repeatedly revealed by opinion polls. Time and again, the results of opinion polls in the Western world, never mind in the Middle East or North Africa, show a quite different picture from the “moderate majority” aquatint.
True, such polls can often show that, for instance, only 27% of British Muslims have “some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks” at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last year. True, that is only between a quarter and a third of British Muslims sympathizing with the blasphemy enforcement squad. On other occasions, such as recently in Britain with a new ICM poll commissioned by Channel 4, they find that a majority of Muslims hold views with which most British people would disagree. So for instance, the recent ICM poll found that 52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be made illegal. That’s a striking figure. Not 52% of British Muslims saying homosexuality is “not their cup of tea” or that they are “not entirely on board with gay marriage,” but 52% of British Muslims thinking that homosexuality should be made a crime under the law.
But it is what happens after such polls emerge that the “moderate majority” idea really comes under strain. First, of course, there is always an attempt to put a positive spin on the results. So for instance, when the post-Charlie Hebdo poll came out last year, the BBC (which had commissioned the poll) ran it with the headline, “Most British Muslims ‘oppose Muhammad cartoon reprisals.’” Although true, it is not the most striking aspect of its findings. But it is what happens next that is most revealing and more truly calls into question whether we are really dealing with a “moderate majority” or, more truthfully, with a “moderate minority.” Because whenever the results come out, nearly the entire Muslim community, including nearly all Muslims in the media and all self-appointed groups of “Muslim community leaders,” try to prove that the poll is a fraud. It happened with the release of the ICM poll in the UK, as it has happened with every previous poll. With the exception of only one or two prominent dissident Muslims, every Muslim voice in the media and every Muslim group decided not to concern themselves with the ICM findings, but to try to pull apart the validity, methodology and even ‘motives’ of the poll. This is deeply revealing.
It is worth trying a thought-experiment here. Whatever community you come from, imagine your reaction if a poll like the ICM one on British Muslims had come out about whatever community you feel a part of. Imagine you are a Jew and a poll had come out saying the majority of other Jews in your country want to make being gay a crime. What would your first reaction be? My impression is that most Jews would be deeply embarrassed. Very shortly after that first reaction, you might begin to wonder what could be done to change such a terrible statistic around. It is possible, if you knew nobody of your faith who thought that homosexuality should be criminalized and had never come across this position before (or any previous polling which suggested the same thing) that you might question the credibility and methodology of the poll. But otherwise, you would probably sigh and wonder what could be done to improve things. If you knew the findings to be fairly accurate, why would you try to tear apart the findings?
Likewise, if tomorrow a poll were published of the opinions of white British people of Christian upbringing in the UK, I would take some interest in it. If it revealed that 39% of British Christians believed that wives should always obey their husbands (as the ICM poll showed British Muslims believe) then I would have some worries. If it also found that almost a quarter (23%) of British people of Christian origin wanted areas of the UK to divest themselves of the law of the land and be run instead on some Biblical literalist “take” on the law, I would worry some more.
Of course, neither of these eventualities is remotely likely to arise. But let us say that it did. What would be my reaction? The first would be to hang my head in shame. And I would hang it just that bit lower if the findings came as absolutely no surprise to me. If I had always known my “community” harboured such views, and a poll revealing this truth came out, I would be deeply ashamed that what I had always known was now known by everyone else in the country.
What is most interesting then, when such polls emerge about the opinions of British Muslims, is that there is never, ever, any hint of such introspection. There is no shame and no concern, only attack. If there were indeed a “moderate majority,” then when a poll comes out saying that a quarter of your community wants fundamentally to alter the law of the land and live under Sharia law, the other 75% would spend their time trying to change the opinions of that quarter. Instead, about 74% of the 75% not in favour of sharia spend their time covering for the 25% and attacking the polling company which discovered them. It is a tiny symptom of a much larger problem, the repercussions of which our societies have hardly begun to face.
As President Obama winds up his farewell tour of Europe, it is appropriate to consider the broader implications of the brouhaha he created in Great Britain. At a joint press conference with Britain Prime Minister, David Cameron, President Obama defended his intrusion into British politics in taking sides on the controversial and divisive Brexit debate. In an op-ed, Obama came down squarely on the side of Britain remaining in the European Union — a decision I tend to agree with on its merits. But he was much criticized by the British media and British politicians for intruding into a debate about the future of Europe and Britain’s role in it.
Obama defended his actions by suggesting that in a democracy, friends should be able to speak their minds, even when they are visiting another country:
“If one of our best friends is in an organization that enhances their influence and enhances their power and enhances their economy, then I want them to stay in. Or at least I want to be able to tell them ‘I think this makes you guys bigger players.'”
Nor did he stop at merely giving the British voters unsolicited advice, he also issued a not so veiled threat. He said that “the UK is going to be in the back of the queue” on trade agreements if they exit the EU.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President Barack Obama take a question at a press conference, on whether it is appropriate for Obama to say whether or not the UK should remain in the European Union, April 22, 2015.
President Obama must either have a short memory or must adhere to Emerson’s dictum that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Recall how outraged the same President Obama was when the Prime Minister of a friendly country, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke his mind about the Iran Deal.
There are, of course, differences: first, Israel has a far greater stake in the Iran Deal than the United States has in whatever decision the British voters make about Brexit: and second, Benjamin Netanyahu was representing the nearly unanimous view of his countrymen, whereas there is little evidence of whether Americans favor or oppose Brexit in large numbers.
Another difference, of course, is that Obama was invited to speak by Cameron, whereas, Netanyahu was essentially disinvited by Obama. But under our tripartite system of government — which is different than Britain’s Unitary Parliamentary system — that fact is monumentally irrelevant. Netanyahu was invited by a co-equal branch of the government, namely Congress, which has equal authority over foreign policy with the president and equal authority to invite a friendly leader. Moreover, not only are the British voters divided over Brexit, but Britain’s Conservative Party itself is deeply divided. Indeed, the leading political figure in opposition to Britain remaining in the European Union is a potential successor to Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party. So these differences certainly don’t explain the inconsistency between Obama’s interference in British affairs and his criticism of Netanyahu for accepting an invitation from Congress to express his country’s views on an issue directly affecting its national security.
So which is it, Mr. President? Should friends speak their minds about controversial issues when visiting another country, or should they keep their views to themselves? Or is your answer that friends should speak their minds only when they agree with other friends, but not when they disagree? Such a view would skew the market place of ideas beyond recognition. If friends should speak about such issues, it is even more important to do so when they disagree.
A wit once observed that “hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” It is also the currency of diplomacy and politics. That doesn’t make it right.
The President owes the American people, and Benjamin Netanyahu, an explanation for his apparent hypocrisy and inconsistency. Let there be one rule that covers all friends — not one for those with whom you agree and another for those with whom you disagree. For me the better rule is open dialogue among friends on all issues of mutual importance. Under this rule, which President Obama now seems to accept, he should have welcomed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advocacy before Congress, instead of condemning it. He owes Prime Minister Netanyahu an apology, and so do those Democratic members of Congress who rudely stayed away from Netanyahu’s informative address to Congress.
(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?
♦ Ever since the inception of the European Economic Community, British politicians across the entire political spectrum have been perceptive enough to realize that Britain will lose its sovereignty and turn into a vassal of the France-Germany axis.
♦ This month, in March, an official audit reported that EU auditors refuse to sign off more than £100 billion ($144 billion) of EU spending. The Brussels accounts have not been given the all-clear for 19 years in a row.
There is a joke going around the internet it how the European Union works (or doesn’t):
Pythagoras’s theorem – 24 words.
Lord’s Prayer – 66 words.
Archimedes’s Principle – 67 words.
10 Commandments – 179 words.
Gettysburg address – 286 words.
U.S. Declaration of Independence – 1,300 words.
U.S. Constitution with all 27 Amendments – 7,818 words.
EU regulations on the sale of cabbage – 26,911 words.
Why are EU Regulations so long? Maybe because they have to be translated into the 18 official languages? Interpreters also have to be found who can work into and from those languages at the European Parliament. The translation budget is massive. One of the official languages currently is Irish. It can confidently be said that there is no one in the Republic of Ireland who does not speak English; many Irish do not even speak or understand Irish, and certainly none of Ireland’s politicians will be fluent only in Irish. But all of the “acquis,” the body of regulations that are already part of the EU body of laws, also have to be translated into the languages of candidates for EU membership, such as Turkey, thus adding more languages to the tally each time a new regulation is passed. If Catalonia breaks away from Spain and remains a member of the EU, Catalan will need to be added, even though Catalan politicians all speak perfect Spanish.
Corruption and Waste
This month, in March, an official audit reported that EU auditors refuse to sign off more than £100 billion ($144 billion) of EU spending. The Brussels accounts have not been given the all-clear for 19 years in a row. Moreover, the EU is apparently less than incompetent at managing the funds it has.
This is happening at a time when the EU is demanding that the UK pay it £1.7 billion ($2.45 billion). It was reported on September 17, 2015 in the Daily Mail newspaper that Britain had reluctantly paid this sum, which prime minister David Cameron himself, a fan of staying in Europe, has described as “appalling.”
Also reported on September 17 in the Daily Telegraph, was that, according to the annual report of the European Court of Auditors, £5.5 billion ($7.9 billion) of the EU budget last year was misspent because of controls on spending that were deemed by experts to be only “partially effective.”[1]
The audit, published on March 17, 2016, found that £109 billion ($157 billion) out of a total of £117 billion spent by the EU in 2013 alone was “affected by material error” — that is, disappeared into various people’s pockets.
Thanks to the European Union, the Value Added Tax (VAT), the tax which in the UK replaced purchase tax in 1973, is now applied to services as well as goods. Such a tax discriminates against service-based economies, such as those of the developed countries, because such economies are taxed so they cannot compete with services provided outside the EU. Each member country’s tax regime is micro-managed by the European Union. The former purchase tax was specifically designed for taxing luxury goods, but the VAT is now imposed even on essentials needed by the poorest members of society. Furthermore, the VAT discriminates against women because the EU requires the member states to tax products used by only one gender, such as tampons.
The “Traveling Circus”
Few people outside European parliamentary circles are aware that there is an EU “traveling circus.” Once a month, the European Parliament moves from Brussels in Belgium to Strasbourg in France. Even though Members of European Parliament (MEPs) voted to scrap this move, the French government, which initiated this madness in the first place, has the power to block any such decision and is apparently determined to do so. That is another fact which goes unmentioned by those determined to keep the UK in the EU. When this author challenged an MEP, Mary Honeyball, on the subject, she claimed that it was “being dealt with,” but the French government is fiercely opposed to keeping the parliament exclusively in Brussels and it has the power to block any such reform. The cost of the “travelling circus” alone is conservatively estimated at £130 million ($187 million) a year.
Free Movement of Labour
The free movement of labour between EU member states was always going to be a non-starter. Has anyone noticed the hordes of British plumbers and electricians emigrating to Bulgaria and Romania? The movement of skilled and unskilled labour from the poorest countries of the EU to the wealthier ones — those that offer generous benefits to the unemployed and even subsidise low wages — has always been a fact of life, one seriously underestimated by successive British governments. The British suffer most because, of all the countries of the EU, the UK offers the most generous benefits. The so-called “freedom of movement,” which has proved to be just a one-way street, is only one of the reasons why Britain needs to regain control of its own destiny and stop being subservient to laws being made by unelected, overpaid, un-unelectable bureaucrats in Brussels.
But Will There Be a Brexit?
Unfortunately, most voters in the British referendum glean their information from the sound bites of politicians on television. This circumstance leaves the public open to manipulation, uninformed, and ignorant of the facts. One fact, however, that cannot be ignored is that ever since Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, British politicians across the entire political spectrum from left (Tony Benn) to right (Enoch Powell) were perceptive enough to realize that Britain would lose the power to make its own laws and turn into a vassal of the France-Germany axis.
Leaving the European Union will give the UK back its sovereignty and leave it free to make alliances not only with its former European partners, but with other Commonwealth countries, to say nothing of the United States, and Central and South America.
Judging by his approach to complex national and international issues, U.S. President Barack Obama is very frustrated. The frustration is natural for someone who made big promises, almost messianic ones, and is now leaving behind nothing more than a trail of shattered dreams. During his eight years in office, the United States has gone from being a leading superpower, a pillar of Western civilization, to a state that is hesitant, indecisive and alarmingly slow to respond. Its domestic economy is faltering, sowing uncertainty and insecurity among the large middle class.
Needless to say, the success enjoyed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an expression of a great number of Americans who grew up hearing about how their flag was raised on Japan’s Mount Suribachi on the island of Iwo Jima toward the end of World War II, and who are now watching with heartache as their beloved flag is being lowered to half-mast before being taken down altogether.
In an effort to gather up the pieces of his crumbling legacy, Obama set out on his final trip to the Middle East and Europe. America’s long-time allies feel betrayed. Their resentment is clear. Relationships between countries are not disposable. The Obama administration’s deference to Iran has had major implications on its ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. A divided Egypt is still paying the price for Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
The state of Israel, which has led the struggle against a nuclear Iran for a long time, has by now come to terms with the fact that the United States was duped by the fake smiles of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his friends in Tehran. Singing Passover songs in Hebrew won’t change the fact that Obama has not changed, after having sided entirely with the mendacious Palestinian narrative of victimhood.
Leaders in the Middle East cannot decide whether Obama is a naive president or one who is willing to sacrifice his fundamental values and his credibility just so he can leave behind what he sees as a positive sentence in the books of history — a sentence that will be erased with record speed.
Europe is also discouraged by the United States. Obama’s indecisiveness regarding the madness in Syria has allowed Russia to take significant steps in the Middle East and Europe. The failed efforts to confront the Syrian problem have contributed to the tsunami of migrants flooding Europe and all the resulting consequences for European society and its security. Add to this, of course, the financial crisis currently threatening to destroy the European Union, the seeds of which were sown in 1992 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.
It is against this backdrop that the 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.
U.S. President Barack Obama has penned an opinion column in Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper outlining why he believes Britain should remain in the European Union (EU). The core of his arguments are: that Britain’s voice would be lost without Brussels bureaucrats; his failing deal with the largest state sponsor of terrorism; the pro-mass-privatisation TTIP deal; and the fact that dead American servicemen are buried in Europe.
One might argue that he has failed to read the room.
Just as President Obama parodied himself in his multitude of snubs to Britain during his tenure, he has, probably unknowingly, lampooned himself again – which hasn’t gone unnoticed by staff at the Telegraph themselves, when tweeting out his column tonight.
President Obama begins by talking up the United Nations and NATO: institutions that are increasingly being called into question not just in Britain, but across Europe and further afield. And he acknowledges the timing of his visit is poor to say the least, jesting:
“I realise that there’s been considerable speculation – and some controversy – about the timing of my visit. And I confess: I do want to wish Her Majesty a happy birthday in person.”
But his op-ed column takes a turn for the bizarre when he mentions the U.S. servicemen who died defending sovereignty and freedom in Europe. This is perhaps especially concerning when he is effectively backing a new German takeover of the continent. He writes:
“The tens of thousands of Americans who rest in Europe’s cemeteries are a silent testament to just how intertwined our prosperity and security truly are. And the path you choose now will echo in the prospects of today’s generation of Americans as well.”
And then comes the attack on the idea of sovereign nations themselves. President Obama insists that “collective action” is more pressing than the idea of independent countries: a notion that those same American servicemen died fighting against:
“And in today’s world, even as we all cherish our sovereignty, the nations who wield their influence most effectively are the nations that do it through the collective action that today’s challenges demand.”
President Obama then goes on to cite the nuclear deal with Iran that has emboldened the country – the globe’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and enemy of the Western world and its allies:
“When we negotiated the historic deal to verifiably prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it was collective action, working together with the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, that got the job done. And the EU’s seat at the table magnified the United Kingdom’s voice.
“When the climate agreement in Paris needed a push, it was the European Union, fortified by the United Kingdom, that ultimately helped make that agreement possible.”
Finally, President Obama discusses the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal – now widely known to be a corporate lobbyist effort to privatise Britain’s National Health Service en masse and give corporations the right to sue governments. It is massively unpopular with the socialist left and the nationalist right, yet he says:
“When it comes to creating jobs, trade, and economic growth in line with our values, the UK has benefited from its membership in the EU – inside a single market that provides enormous opportunities for the British people. And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests, and establish the high-standard, pro-worker rules for trade and commerce in the 21st century economy.”
Conclusively, one might argue that President Obama’s op-ed is a litany of unpopular, establishment narratives. The most worrying thing about it? Most people aren’t likely to have a clue what he’s talking about.
(So soon ve get oldt and so late ve get schmart. — DM)
Bradford, United Kingdom – Gett
The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.
Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:
One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.
Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”
Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.
Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”
Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.
And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.
“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.
“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”
His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.
“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”
“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”
And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.
Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”
Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”
And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”
“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”
In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.
Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.
French soldiers guard a Jewish school in Strasbourg, February 2015. (Image source: Claude Truong-Ngoc/Wikimedia Commons)
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments