Posted tagged ‘Islamisation’

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel?

March 23, 2016

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, March 23, 2016

Authorities need look no further than Angela Merkel as the prime suspect for the latest carnage in Brussels.

More than anyone, it was Merkel who opened the floodgates to the migrants — armies of men without women posing as refugees from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan found trampling throughout Europe. When they are caught misbehaving, they smirk and say, “I am here as a guest of Angela Merkel,” and they are correct and nearly untouchable.

Merkel stands by her open borders policy, the safety of her people be damned.

Over the past 12 months, more then a million of them have already crossed into Germany alone; 300,000 have been given asylum.

Of Brussels at this hour, all Western Europe leadership is guilty with Merkel sharing the largest part of the blame. These are her pets.

“Don’t go out unless you have to” is the hot new message circulating throughout Europe now that the “refugees” have arrived. You could get raped.

You could also get killed, and that’s what happened when the citizens of Brussels dared to go out Tuesday morning during rush hour. Scores were slain and wounded from yet another Islamic terror attack and people all over want to know how to make this stop.

Stop the influx. How’s that for an idea that needs no Einstein? Deport them instead. Maybe starting with Merkel, who invited the stampede.

The Saudis and the princes from the other Gulf States have it neatly figured out.

(So does Trump who wants to stop it and saw it coming as did this must-read thriller.)

Those titled Arabs don’t want that crowd within 100 miles even though they are fellow Muslims. But they do not want that type entering their borders, bringing with them their license to rape, their rivalries and tribal feuds, hell no, so why not Europe, and Europe says, sure, why not? Bring them on!

How clueless!

This is how. Only a few days ago, there they sat around a big table in Brussels, the smooth rulers of the EU, congratulating themselves on the capture of the final “mastermind” behind the November attack in Paris that killed 130. The French president was there, the Belgium prime minister was there and all the rest together expressed joy to the world that Salah Abdeslam had been caught.

Merkel sent in her gratitude for the superb police work.

At the moment they were hi-fiving the one success, 10,000 more “refugees” streamed in, plenty of them likewise “masterminds.”

Can no one do the math?

We pass the point of absurdity when “open borders” imperils us all throughout the world. There is no stopping the mad dash across continents.

Nor can we stop the madness that afflicts the world’s leaders.

Merkel and the rest of you clueless rulers of Europe, your misguided liberal sympathies and migrant leniencies are killing us.

Hence, Obama has chimed in his condolences for the pain in Brussels. “The entire world must unite,” he said. Yeah, sure, thanks. Will do.

Now back to the game, Mr. President.

Employing European wisdom, he wants to bring more of them into the United States. Thanks again.

Likewise Hillary and Trudeau. First the condolences followed by “we must resist Islamophobia” and keep the influx coming.

Hillary demands that we bring in 65,000 of them. Trudeau is ahead of her. He’s already got them in Canada.

It takes no prophet to know what’s coming for Canada and what’s next for the United States.

Don’t blame the terrorists, only. They are murderers but they know what they are doing.

The same cannot be said for the men and women who run our world.

Trump: We have to be very careful who comes into our country

March 22, 2016

Trump: We have to be very careful who comes into our country, Fox News via You Tube, March 22, 2016

War in Europe

March 22, 2016

War in Europe, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, March 22, 2016

br

At least 28 are dead in Tuesday morning’s jihad attacks in Brussels. Enough.

It’s time for votes of no-confidence. Parliamentary systems generally allow for votes of no-confidence that trigger new elections. It’s time for the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and more to fall. I’m not talking about violent revolution. There are mechanisms for the peaceful replacement of governments in most European nations at times when the existing government is seen widely to be inadequate for the task at hand. It is time to put those mechanisms to use. The existing governments are responsible for policies that have turned Europe into a war zone, and that war is just beginning. The political and media elites have failed Europe and the free world, and put Europe on a course toward civil war and bloodshed unseen on the continent since the days of Hitler.

A new Hitler is in Europe. It is not Donald Trump. It is not the “right-wing.” The new Hitler is very much like the old Hitler: he hates Jews. He has contempt for the historical patrimony of Western civilization. He means to rule by an iron fist and subordinate every other power to his will. He respects only strength, and despises weakness. The new Hitler is not just one man, but millions — millions who believe in an ideology that teaches warfare against and subjugation of free people under its heel.

Historically, Europe saw the threat that the men who held to this ideology posed, and shed blood to resist their advance. Now, the sons and heirs of those who gave their lives to make sure their children and their children’s children would live free have flung open the gates and invited in those who would enslave them. They have invited them into their countries in massive numbers, and vilified and ostracized anyone who dared note the lessons of history and the content of the invaders’ ideology.

This morning, as a result of these policies, Brussels is engulfed in chaos and the grief of blood shed in war. There will be much, much more to come of this.

It is time to sweep them out. All of them: the multiculturalists, the cultural relativists, the internationalists, the levellers, the elites who have brought this death and destruction upon Brussels today, and Paris yesterday, and the rest of Europe tomorrow. Europe, if it is to survive as a home of free people, must turn out its entire political and media establishment. This can still be done peacefully, and must be done quickly. If Europe is to survive as a home of free people, it needs governments who recognize that the “refugees” storming into their countries now include an untold number of jihad murderers who mean to kill their people and destroy their societies, and who have the courage to stand up and stop that refugee flow, and turn it back. Saudi Arabia has tens of thousands of air-conditioned tents for hajj pilgrims, and not one refugee. Why? Because they have noted, correctly, that there are jihad terrorists among the refugees.

Can Saudi Arabia protect itself and Europe cannot?

This is a war. It is a war for survival. It is a war that will determine whether Europe (and North America is not far behind) will live in freedom or slavery. The present European political and media elites are inviting the slavery of their people. They must be soundly repudiated. Too much is at stake to continue to countenance their self-delusion and fantasy. Those who are struggling to survive cannot afford to be unrealistic about what they’re facing. In the United States also, we need leaders who will speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the war we’re in. Surely there are some people in Europe who are both able to lead and willing to tell the truth. It is time for them to be peacefully installed in power — before it’s too late, as it very soon will be.

Sharia in Denmark

March 22, 2016

Sharia in Denmark, Gatestone InstituteJudith Bergman, March 22, 2016

♦ Documentary filmmakers in Denmark conducted an undercover investigation, with hidden cameras, into claims that imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims within Denmark.

♦ Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque, told Fatma that her husband is entitled to take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his “sexual rights,” even when he is violent.

♦ The imam of the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque gave Fatma the same answers she had received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without her husband’s permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her, she must not contact the police.

♦ Umm Abdullah told Fatma that she should only meet with Danish people in order to tell them about Islam. This is necessary, she said, to save the Danes from hell, and the only reason Muslims should interact with Danes.

The issue of parallel Muslim societies has sparked renewed debate in Denmark after a three-part television documentary, “The Mosques Behind the Veil” was aired at the beginning of March on Danish TV2.

The documentary consists of an undercover investigation into claims that Muslim imams are working towards keeping parallel societies for Muslims within Denmark.

The filmmakers had two young Muslims — brought from outside Denmark — go undercover in Gellerupparken, an area best described as a predominantly Muslim ghetto in Aarhus, Denmark’s second city. For three months, the two lived as a fictitious couple, Fatma and Muhammed, while visiting eight different mosques in Aarhus, Odense and Copenhagen — the three largest cities in Denmark — with hidden cameras. The goal was to hear what imams say behind closed doors about Danish law and authorities, gender equality and general contact with Danish society, such as Muslim women participating in the Danish job market. There are approximately 140 mosques in all of Denmark.

The film is similar in concept to the British BBC Panorama documentary, “Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils,” which aired in April 2013. The BBC went undercover to document the discrimination practiced in British sharia councils against Muslim women. (The existence of British sharia councils were no secret to the British; the Danish film, it turned out, documented a Danish sharia council for the first time).

For the purpose of the documentary, Fatma was given a personal cover story — based on real-life dilemmas — for which she would seek advice from the different imams: Her husband is violent, and she does not wish to have sex with him. She cannot get pregnant and his family has found a second wife for him. She consulted with a Danish girlfriend about the violence, which has left her bruised, and the girlfriend told her to go to the police.

What do the imams think she should do?

The series begins in the Grimhøj mosque. The mosque has been in the Danish headlines for years, especially since police statistics in 2013 showed that 22 out of the 27 Muslims from Aarhus who left to fight with Islamic State in Syria had frequented it. The head of the mosque, Oussama El Saadi, has, in fact, said that he hopes the Islamic State will win and that there will be an Islamic world government. The imam of the same mosque, Abu Bilal, was sentenced last year in Germany for inciting hatred against both Jews and non-Jews, and fined €10,000.

1520Abu Bilal, imam of the Grimhøj mosque in Denmark, was fined €10,000 last year in Germany, after being found guilty of inciting hatred against both Jews and non-Jews. (Image source: MEMRI video screenshot)

Fatma, during her visits to the mosque, learned from imam Abu Bilal that married women who commit infidelity should be stoned to death, and that Muslims who leave Islam may be killed. He makes no reservations about these teachings. She also learned that young children who refuse to pray should be beaten (a woman asks the imam specifically, how she should conduct those beatings). Fatma was also informed that a woman may not take a job without her husband’s permission.

Abu Bilal further says that her husband is entitled to take another wife. Fatma is not allowed to deny her husband his “sexual rights,” even when he is violent. When she asks the imam if she should involve the police, the answer is an emphatic “no.”

Officially, the spokesman of the Grimhøj mosque, along with spokesmen from three of the eight mosques, professes that the mosque respects Danish law. But behind closed doors — on hidden camera — he advocates polygamy and beating children. He also instructs Fatma to go back to her abusive spouse and to let him commit what amounts to rape.

Fatma attended three other mosques in Aarhus, one of which publicly claims to be “moderate.” All of the clerics gave her the same answers. Some told her that violence is not allowed, but made it clear that there is nothing she can do. The imam at the Fredens mosque added that she might be able to obtain a divorce, if necessary, from their sharia council.

Muhammed, reporting what he experienced in the mosques, told TV2 news that he had been warned in the mosques against the Danes; informed that they were kuffar (unbelievers), and that he should avoid them and their social functions, such as birthday parties. One imam told the couple that they should “not melt into Danish society,” but simply surround themselves with other Muslims.

In Copenhagen, Fatma consulted the leader of the female section of the Islamisk Trossamfund mosque, Umm Abdullah. The claim at Islamisk Trossamfund is that it is in contact with several thousand Muslims every week, and thus among the biggest mosques in Denmark. Umm Abdullah tells Fatma that she must not go to birthday parties; there would be, she says, alcohol and mixed male and female company — and she should only meet with Danish people in order to tell them about Islam. This is necessary, says Umm Abdullah, to save the Danes from hell, and the only reason why Muslims should interact with Danes. When Fatma asks her about her personal problems, Umm Abdullah tells her that she must not contact the police about the violent husband. “Why should you become a laughing stock in front of the infidels?” she rhetorically asks.

Fatma also went to see the imam at the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque in Copenhagen, better known in Denmark as “Stormoskeen” [“the big mosque”]. Named after the former emir of Qatar and fully sponsored by him, it opened in 2014. The organization behind the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque, the Danish Islamic Council, has claimed that the people who operate the mosque have chosen a moderate interpretation of Islam that is compatible with Danish society.

On camera, the spokesman from the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque confidently assured the journalists from TV2 News that the mosque thoroughly respects Danish laws. He even assured them that women enjoy even better rights than men.

When Fatma spoke to the imam of the Hamad Bin Khalifa mosque, however, and filmed it with a hidden camera, she was given the same answers she had received in all the other mosques: She must not take a job without her husband’s permission, and even if her husband continues to beat her, she must not contact the police. This most “moderate” of all the Danish mosques also advocated polygamy, and the right of the husband to his wife’s body, even when she might prefer to refuse him.

One of the questions Danes are asking themselves after viewing the documentary, is whether Danish Muslims actually listen to the imams and do what they say. According to a poll conducted in October 2015, 40% of all Danish Muslims believe that the law in Denmark should be based solely on the words of the Quran and 77% believe that the Quran should be followed to the word. Ten years ago, the figure was 62%. The poll showed that 50% of all Danish Muslims pray five times a day; ten years ago, the figure was 37%.

While the working assumption has been that with time, Muslims would become less, not more, religious, these numbers fly in the face of the wish that Muslims might be comfortably assimilated into Danish culture.

At the end of the documentary, Fatma and Mohammed visit the sharia council — which, since the documentary aired, has been dismantled, but others are believed to exist — at the Fredens mosque in Aarhus. Here, Fatma pleads over ten times for a divorce from her violent husband, but the council refuses, telling her to go back home and try again.

These were exactly the same responses as those given by the imams of the British sharia councils in the BBC Panorama documentary from 2013. Genuinely abused women pleaded in vain for divorce, and sometimes had to wait for ten years to obtain it. The answers they received from the imam were identical with the answers that Fatma heard from the eight different imams in Denmark: Go back to your violent spouse and try to work it out.

TV2 presented the secret recordings to all the mosques that had been investigated, but the mosques refused to comment on them.

Instead, 31 Danish mosques and Islamic organizations decided to react to the exposure of their goings-on by collectively condemning the way that TV2 had portrayed the Islamic organizations in the documentary. The organizations held the TV station responsible for the “way that it was destroying the integration that the organizations had worked on for the past 30 years in Denmark” and claimed that “Danish Muslims are an integral part of Danish society and play a positive role in integrating Muslims into Danish society.” They also reaffirmed that “Muslims have a right to seek advice about Islam, Islamic rules and Islamic sharia in Denmark.”

The ongoing public debate that has followed the broadcast, shows — unsurprisingly — that neither politicians, opinion makers nor so-called “experts” have any workable plans for how to deal with what the TV documentary revealed. Some have suggested that imams get a special university education or go through a licensing process. Others have suggested closing the Grimhøj mosque — an act that would doubtless be regarded as provocation, and one that would not solve anything in other, similar, mosques. Still other observers have suggested looking more closely at possibilities in the Danish constitution for dealing with the problem. One thing is clear: Denmark is as far away from solving this problem as the rest of Europe — and it is not going to get any easier.

Feminist Whores For Islam

March 21, 2016

Feminist Whores For Islam, Pat Condell via You Tube, March 21, 2016

(Please see also, The Democrats’ Soft Spot for Islam. — DM)

 

The Democrats’ Soft Spot for Islam

March 21, 2016

The Democrats’ Soft Spot for Islam, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, March 21, 2016

bn

The hard-Left online organ Salon has discovered the secret of Donald Trump’s success: “Islamophobia.” Citing theAmerican National Election Studies 2016 pilot survey, Salon solemnly intones that “Trump supporters are far more likely to express Islamophobic attitudes than other respondents, even other Republicans.” A “stunning 60 percent of Trump supporters” expressed the “Islamophobic” idea that “the word ‘violent’ describes Muslims ‘very’ or ‘extremely’ well.” Salon cannot fathom how anyone could possibly have gotten the idea that Muslims are violent (even including “a bit more than a quarter of Democrats”), and neither can the dominant voices in the Democratic Party. This blind spot regarding jihad terror is nothing less than Democratic Party policy.

Salon demonstrates its myopia about the problem of jihad terror when it notes that “for comparison, only 7 percent of Trump supporters said that the word ‘violent’ describes white people extremely or very well.” “White people”? What about Islamic jihad terrorists who are “white people,” such as al-Qaeda’s late sometime spokesman Adam Gadahn, the Boston Marathon jihad bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, would-be Wichita airport jihad bomber Terry Lee Loewen, and so many others? Salon doesn’t consider them: for the Left, and for the Democratic Party in particular, concern about jihad terror is just another form of racism, and that’s that. White Muslim jihad terrorists simply don’t exist.

They don’t exist for Bernie Sanders, either. Last October, a Muslim student, Remaz Abdelgader, referred to Ben Carson’s statements about not wanting a Muslim President and said to Sanders: “Being an American is such a strong part of my identity, but I want to create a change in this society. I’m so tired of listening to this rhetoric saying I can’t be president one day, that I should not be in office. It makes me so angry and upset. This is my country.” Sanders replied: “If we stand for anything we have to stand together and end all forms of racism in this country. I will lead that effort as president.”

What race is Islam again? What race is Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays again? That was what the controversy over Carson’s remarks was really about: he raised a legitimate question about the compatibility of Sharia and the U.S. Constitution. Sharia denies the freedom of speech and the equality of rights of women and non-Muslims before the law, and contravenes the Constitution in other ways as well. In 1960, John Kennedy was subjected to baseless prejudice as a Roman Catholic, and today Sanders and others consigns concerns about a Muslim President to an analogous baseless prejudice. But Kennedy actually addressed concerns, and assured Americans that he would obey and enforce the Constitution and no other law. Nowadays, asking a hypothetical Muslim candidate if he would obey and enforce the Constitution and not Sharia, as far as the leading lights in the Democratic Party are concerned, is “racism.”

So what would happen if a Sharia-compliant Muslim candidate did become President, and began working against the freedoms that the Constitution allows but Sharia does not? Would all those who voted for him simply congratulate themselves on their resistance to “racism” as their freedoms were eroded away?

The likely nominee is no better. Last November, Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” How will President Hillary Clinton have the slightest chance of defeating the Islamic State when she is so divorced from reality as to say something like this? Obviously an uncomfortable number of Muslims do in fact have something to do with terrorism, and the fact that many do not says nothing whatsoever about whether or not Islam contains teachings and exhortations that make all too many Muslims believe that it is actually our adversary.

Both Sanders and Clinton were just playing to the Democratic Party base – the base that is sure that “white people” are just as violent or even more violent than Muslims, and that concern about jihad terror is “racism.” The aptly-named Party of Treason’s refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of the challenge of jihad terror only ensures that, whoever becomes President on January 20, 2017, there will be in the U.S. in the coming years much, much more jihad terror.

Hmm, Where Could All This Hatred Be Coming From?

March 20, 2016

Hmm, Where Could All This Hatred Be Coming From? Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, March 20, 2016

(Haven’t they blamed Trump yet? — DM)

♦ As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them.

♦ As many on the so-called left have earlier shown, their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct.

♦ “Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.” — Mehdi Hassan, The New Statesman.

♦ Is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two other “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?

Not a month goes by in Britain without some left-wing proponent of anti-Jewish racism exposing themselves. Last month it was the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) that was found to be harbouring anti-Semites among its members. In recent weeks there have been a number of adult members of the Labour party who have been readmitted to the party or promoted within it while holding extreme anti-Jewish views.

The most recent case revolves around one Vicki Kirby, a Labour parliamentary candidate before the last general election, when she was suspended from the party for tweeting about Jews having “big noses,” Adolf Hitler being the “Zionist god” and other ramblings. Naturally, Ms. Kirby’s suspension has since been lifted. As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is very hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them. Last week it came to public attention that Ms. Kirby had now become the vice-chair of her local party chapter.

The story was broken on right-of-centre websites, which ordinarily means that left-of-centre activists dismiss them as “smears.” But these stories are now coming in so thick and fast that an increasing number of people on the left are starting to admit they might have a problem. At least they are choosing to throw the more minor anti-Semites under the bus while preserving those at the top of their ranks. Had the charges aimed at Ms. Kirby been aimed at Mr Corbyn, we would still be being told that these were “rumours,” “innuendo” and the like.

Nevertheless, some Corbyn loyalists have decided that Ms. Kirby may indeed be a bit much, and realized that it is probably time to address the problem. Unfortunately, having failed to recognize the virus earlier, the remedies these people are now suggesting for cure are predictably wrong-headed.

Take for example the Guardian-published Corbyn activist, Owen Jones. Last week, ignoring his own history of stirring up lies against the Jewish state, he responded to his party’s latest embarrassment by arguing that Labour’s rules should be changed so that “anyone found guilty of anti-Semitism — or any other form of racism — is expelled from the party.” He went on to say that, “Their readmission should only happen when they have demonstrably been shown to have been re-educated.” There is the start of the problem. As so often with those on the Corbyn-ite wing of politics, the answer to problems of the heart or mind is “re-education.” The only problem — as the left many have earlier shown in a range of twentieth-century initiatives ranging from Stalin to Mao — is that their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct. As Jones goes on to show, this is rarely the case.

For his second prevarication for dealing with Labour’s anti-Semitism problem, Jones wrote that the party should:

“… set up two commissions: one on antisemitism, the other on anti-Muslim prejudice, respectively headed by a leading Jewish and a Muslim figure. Both forms of bigotry are on the rise in Britain, and both exist within progressive circles and the Labour party. The commissions could issue a series of recommendations, both for dealing with it when it arises within Labour, and also in wider society.”

As everyone involved in politics knows, there are two ways truly to ignore a problem: the first is just to ignore it; the second is to “set up a commission.”

But there are several perhaps unwittingly interesting things about this flaccid suggestion. The first is the reflexive and unthinking demonstration among many these days that they cannot possibly deal with anti-Semitism unless they also throw Muslims into the mix. To deal with anti-Semitism on its own might throw up too many problems and raise too many communal problems.

But let us say that two such commissions were set up. And let us pretend for a moment that they were indeed headed by people who were not merely “leading” but also honest figures.

The head of the commission to look into anti-Semitic prejudice, might find a number of startling things. He or she might find, for instance, that the dominant strand of anti-Semitism in British life in 2016 comes not from Ms. Kirby’s ilk, but from the British Muslim community. The commission head would not have to go far to learn this. One only has to pick up a copy of the British left’s in-house magazine, The New Statesman, and read an article from just three years ago by the British-born Al-Jazeera broadcaster, Mehdi Hassan. In an unusually honest piece entitled, “The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected the British Muslim community,” the author explains that:

“Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.”

So as Hassan has reminded us, the sorry truth is that if a commission into anti-Semitism were set up, it would have to finger the majority of British Muslims as at least a very large part of the problem.

Meanwhile, let us say that the second commission were set up — the one that gives cover to the anti-Semitism commission which is looking at “anti-Muslim” feeling. This commission might come to an equally problematic conclusion. This commission might conclude, for instance, that to the extent that any “anti-Muslim” feeling might be said to exist in the UK, it comes from a number of factors quite separate from innate and unalterable prejudice in the hearts of the British people. It might come, for instance, from a dislike of suicide-bombings, assassinations, beheadings and other varieties of terrorism carried out while discussing the greatness of Allah. Although most British people will remain perfectly capable of understanding the difference between the actions of the extremists and the behaviour of the vast majority of British Muslims, they may be concerned about the amount of deflection and denial that they see even from leaders of very mainstream Muslim organizations. Indeed, is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might not also be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?

Perhaps after all it would be best if the Corbyn-ite element of the Labour party does not attempt this process of “re-education”? The path to wisdom must include some self-understanding. Yet the Labour party’s anti-Semitism problem comes from people who propel the very hatred they profess to despise. As such, they remain in no position to “re-educate” anyone, as they so stubbornly refuse to educate themselves.

Syrian Refugees a Threat to the West?

March 18, 2016

Syrian Refugees a Threat to the West? Religious Freedom Coalition, Editors, March 15, 2016

Syrian immigrants

“Europe is a basket case” and “it is going to get worse in 2016,” stated former House Intelligence Committee chairman Pete Hoekstra at a February 29 Center for a Secure Free Society (CSFS) panel in Washington, DC, on Middle East refugees.  He and his fellow panelists gave critical analysis of various dangers faced by Western societies responding to the humanitarian crisis caused by sectarian violence in a disintegrating Iraq and Syria.

Center for a Secure Free Society Senior Fellow J.D. Gordon introduced the panel by noting that four million Syrians, about half the country’s population, have fled the country.  Such numbers placed in perspective the 10,000 Syrian refugees President Barack Obama’s administration intended to resettle in the United States, as mentioned in the event literature.  Center for a Secure Free Society International Fellow for Canada Candice Malcolmsimilarly noted that Canada had fulfilled the very day of the panel a campaign pledge by recently elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to accept 25,000 Syrian refugees.

Yet the panel focused on Europe, where an estimated 900,000 Syrian refugees had entered Germany alone, as noted by panel moderator and Daily Caller opinion editor Jordan Bloom.  American career diplomat Ambassador Alberto Fernandez described this human stream by which Europe voided its own entry rules as a “massive, unplanned exercise in virtue signaling by the European Union.”  Bloom worriedly noted the recent announcement by German authorities that they had lost track of 130,000 refugees.

“Germany is lying,” Hoekstra responded to Bloom amidst audience laughter, “there is no way that they are still tracking 770,000, that they have only lost 130,000.  They only know that they have lost 130,000.”  Hoekstra described television coverage during a recent Europe vacation of thousands of refugees in the Budapest train station where he and his wife had just transited.  He speculated that perhaps another 50-70,000 refugees had entered Germany without any official knowledge.

“If you don’t think that they are seeded with ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] people, you are crazy,” Hoekstra said of these refugees while predicting for Europe as well as Canada a “security nightmare.”  “We have no idea who these people are.  The Canadians have no idea who these people are,” he stated while suggesting that half the refugees entering Europe actually came from Afghanistan.  Fernandez discussed a Syrian friend living in Belgium who went to visit 90 supposed Syrian refugees in her community but only discovered five; the rest of the individuals hailed from various places like Afghanistan or Eritrea.

Malcolm cited worrying statistics such as those of a British polling firm that found 20 percent of Syrians in general and 13 percent of Syrian refugee camp residents in particular having a positive view of ISIS.  A Lebanese cabinet minister had estimated that two percent of Syrian refugees were ISIS sympathizers/members, approximating nonetheless 20,000 dangerous individuals among Lebanon’s 1.2 million Syrian refugees.  Yet for Syrian refugees “Europe has absolutely no selection criteria whatsoever.  It is a first come, first served free-for-all.”

Malcolm described strict Canadian security controls similar to America’s designed to screen such dangers among refugee resettlement applicants.  Canada only accepted Syrian families, no single men, from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) camps and applicants could not have infectious diseases or criminal records.  Any inconsistency in an applicant’s story immediately stops security checks involving an interview.

Nonetheless, Malcolm noted that ISIS had seized passport production facilities in Syria’s failed state, a factor among others like stolen identification that would stymie even Canada’s precautions.  Reliable Syrian officials for local background investigations no longer existed, she noted, while Hoekstra observed that “by definition, trying to get information from a failed state means you are going to get failed information.”  While Canadian intelligence has already identified Islamic terror cells in every major Canadian city, Malcolm stated, ‘it just takes one to get through to create a national security threat.”  This should also concern Canada’s American neighbor across a basically open border.

While Trudeau’s refugee pledge initially helped him on the campaign trail, Canadian public opinion has “totally flipped” on further refugee resettlement, Malcolm observed.  “After the [November 2015] Paris attacks, people in Canada started to realize that there was a threat” and overwhelmed Canadian refugee aid organizations want a pause in admitting refugees.  While Trudeau has called for resettling another 25,000 refugees, 70 percent of surveyed Canadians disagree with his policy and 43 percent want no more.

Fernandez noted that security concerns can extend beyond the first generation of resettled Muslim refugees.  “Second generation immigrants are an at risk population,” as unlike the parents who show gratitude towards asylum countries, the children “grow up confused, they grow up with identity issues.”  As an example he cited the 2013 Boston marathon bombers, the offspring of Chechen asylum seekers, while Malcolm mentioned Ottawa’s 2014 Parliament Hill shooter, a Canadian-born man whose father was involved with Libyan jihadists.

Himself a Cuban refugee, Fernandez worried about Muslim refugee assimilation in a Europe now having an “acute crisis of identity.”  He emphasized the necessity of a “confident, clear-minded culture, society, and state who understands who they are, what they are, what their values are, what they stand for, to be able to assimilate others.”  The demand to assimilate foreign-born individuals into a society begs the question “assimilate into what?”

Amidst all these concerns, Fernandez noted in Syria the “tremendous irony that the countries that are not responsible for this debacle are the ones being called upon to do much” to help.  Iran, Qatar, Russia, and Saudi Arabia had given the most aid to the Syrian conflict parties, yet the single largest humanitarian donor to Syrian refugees was the United States, a non-Muslim-majority country.  Malcolm meanwhile noted that 90 percent of Syrian refugees originally offered sanctuary in Canada refused, demonstrating how many refugees wanted to stay in the region.  Many things would be simpler for all concerned if only they could satisfactorily fulfill this wish.

Satire | Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic!

March 18, 2016

Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic! Dan Miller’s Blog, March 18, 2016

(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

trump-assault

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. 

As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.

Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:

They’re patriots.

. . . .

With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:

A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.

Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.

Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!

Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!

668 (1)

Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.

 

 

Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.

Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning

came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!

Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.

PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.

“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”

Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.

“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was speaking just days before a campaign event in Phoenix.

Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump

The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.

Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.

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

Editor’s comments

 

 

 

As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.

It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.

 

 

Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.

 

 

For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?

crazed

 

Germany’s Merkel to Voters: “No Change to Migration Policy”

March 18, 2016

Germany’s Merkel to Voters: “No Change to Migration Policy” Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, March 18, 2016

♦ Chancellor Angela Merkel ‘s migration policy is causing security mayhem in Germany, where mostly Muslim migts are raping and assaulting women and children with virtual impunity.

♦ Merkel’s party was defeated in two out of the three federal states voting in March 13 regional elections. By contrast, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) — an upstart anti-establishment party campaigning against Merkel’s liberal migration policy — surged to double-digit results in all three states.

♦ Political and media elites are ramping up a months-long campaign to delegitimize AfD voters as agitators, arsonists, far-right extremists, fascists, Nazis, populists and xenophobes.

♦ Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has called on German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD, presumably in an effort to silence critics of the government’s migration policy. Gabriel has called for Germany to take in even more migrants by airlifting them into the country directly from the Middle East.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has vowed to continue her open-door migration policy — despite heavy losses in regional elections that were widely regarded as a referendum on that very policy.

Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) was defeated in two out of the three federal states voting on March 13. By contrast, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) — an upstart anti-establishment party campaigning against Merkel’s liberal migration policy — surged to double-digit results in all three states: Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saxony-Anhalt.

In a press conference after the election results were in, Merkel remained defiant. She reprimanded German voters for questioning her handling of the migration crisis: “There are people who did not listen to us at all and simply cast protest votes. We need to solve this [migrant] problem, not through theoretical debates, but by finding a [European] solution to the problem.”

The elections were the most important in Germany since Merkel allowed more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to enter the country in 2015. Merkel’s migration policy is causing security mayhem in Germany, where mostly Muslim migrants are raping and assaulting women and children with virtual impunity.

With immigration now the dominant issue in German politics, Merkel’s refusal to reverse her open-door migration policy has alienated many of her traditional supporters, scores of whom are flocking to the AfD to protest Germany’s pro-immigration, pro-EU political establishment.

The AfD was founded as a Eurosceptic party in 2013 by German economists advocating the abolition of the European single currency, the euro, and opposing financial bailouts of profligate eurozone countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

At the time, the AfD was widely ridiculed by Germany’s mainstream media. In July 2013, for example, the Rheinische Post published an “analysis” which referred to the AfD as the “unlucky professor’s party” that “does not have many chances” as a political party. Nevertheless, in 2014 and 2015, the AfD secured seats in five of Germany’s 16 regional parliaments, and seven seats in the European Parliament.

After an internal power struggle, Frauke Petry — a 40-year-old chemist, entrepreneur and mother of four who hails from the former East Germany — assumed leadership of the AfD in July 2015. Since then, Petry has broadened the party’s initial focus on economics to immigration.

The AfD — now the third-largest party in Germany — poses a significant challenge to the political status quo in Germany. If its momentum holds, the AfD is on track to cross the 5% threshold in general elections in 2017 to qualify for seats in the national legislature, the Bundestag.

1515In recent regional elections, the CDU party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (left) suffered heavy losses to the upstart anti-establishment party Alternative for Germany, led by Frauke Petry (right).

The left-leaning German newsmagazine, Der Spiegel, long hostile toward the AfD, acknowledged that the party has achieved a “breakthrough” and called the election result “Black Sunday” for Merkel:

“For a long time she had hoped, despite considerable popular opposition to her refugee policy, to win two chancelleries in the southwest of the country. This has come to nothing. Merkel will now have to live with the accusation that she has allowed the AfD finally to establish itself [as a democratic alternative] to the right of the CDU.”

The leader of the AfD, Frauke Petry, said the fact that her party won big in two states in western Germany — Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate — showed that “the AFD is an all-German party and that citizens in all regions of Germany want a change of politics.” In a Facebook post, she added:

“Yesterday we made a first important step in the right direction to break the cartels of consensus parties. Already, it has been indicated that they [mainstream parties] will not accept the will of the people. We will probably see the most colorful combination of political coalitions, just so they can continue to stay in power and further marginalize voters of the AfD.”

Petry was referring to Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, who said that despite her electoral drubbing, Merkel will not reverse course on migration:

“The Federal Government will continue to pursue its refugee policy, with full determination, at home and abroad. At home, we will ease the path to integrate those people who have sought and found protection here. At European level, the goal must be a common, sustainable European solution that leads to a reduction in the number of refugees in all member states of the European Union.”

The CDU’s general secretary, Peter Tauber, echoed the view that there is no alternative to Merkel’s migration policy: “Considering what we have already achieved, I recommend that we continue on the path we are on.”

Some German commentators have tried to downplay the AfD’s gains by arguing that although Merkel lost the election, she actually won the election because the majority of Germans voted for mainstream parties. Bernd Ulrich, editor of Die Zeit, wrote:

“These three elections, which were in fact a plebiscite on the refugee policy, sent an encouraging message of approval. On average, two-thirds of voters cast ballots for parties that support the relatively liberal refugee policies of Angela Merkel.”

Writing in Der Spiegel, columnist Jakob Augstein argued:

“On Sunday Angela Merkel achieved an unlikely feat: her party was trounced, but her refugee policy was confirmed and strengthened… How did the chancellor do on Election Day? In truth, she has been strengthened. The fact is: a large majority of voters support the chancellor.”

According to Augstein, Merkel is “the right woman in the wrong party” because she has moved the center-right CDU to the left on so many issues, including migration policy, that the party is now virtually indistinguishable from its coalition partner, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). What Augstein failed to mention is that Merkel’s move to the left is responsible for creating a political vacuum to the right of the CDU — a vacuum that is now being filled by the AfD.

Other political and media elites are ramping up a months-long campaign to delegitimize AfD voters as agitators, arsonists, far-right extremists, fascists, Nazis, populists and xenophobes.

German media are also churning out stories — many of which are based on hearsay — aimed at discrediting the AfD. The magazine, Stern, published this headline: “Reports of Nazi Songs at AfD-Election Party.” The Berliner Kurier: “Former Teacher Calls AfD Leader Frauke Petry a Liar.”Die Welt: “AfD Candidate Accused of Running Escort Service.” Berliner Morgenpost: “After AfD Coup, Saxony-Anhalt’s Hoteliers Are Anxious.” Stern: “AfD and Donald Trump: Hate is the Main Issue.” Die Zeit: “AfD Principles: Not So Important.”

On Election Day, Die Zeit ridiculed the AfD’s 70-point political platform by using the following bullet points:

“More popular referendums, more monitoring of citizens, stiffer penalties for criminals, dissolve the EU, shrink the state, lower taxes, cut social spending, put women back in the kitchen, ban employment quotas for women, make it harder to file for divorce, abolish abortion, close borders, harass Muslims, ruin the climate, expand nuclear power, expand the military, more private weapons, etc.”

Taxpayer-funded ZDF public television broadcast an interview with Thomas Kliche, a German psychologist, who compared AfD voters to “children who are stubborn and unreasonable.” The only way to deal with such people, he said, is “just have patience, ignore the stupidity, and confront it with rationalism.”

According to Kliche, AfD voters are suffering from “macro-social stress” induced by globalization (i.e., mass migration):

“People react with various forms of shock management. This begins with retrograde, regressive, childish fantasies that everything can be as it was before. Some believe that by shouting ‘We are the People!’ [the main slogan of anti-government demonstrators in East Germany in 1989-1990, reminding their leaders that Germany should be ruled by the people, not by an undemocratic party claiming to represent them], the migrants will disappear…. They have no solutions, just fantasies. Building a fence — this is a fantasy. Separate yourself from the world — that is a fantasy.”

Meanwhile, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has called on German intelligence to begin monitoring the AfD, presumably in an effort to silence critics of the government’s migration policy. Gabriel — who leads the SPD, which also suffered significant losses on March 13 — has called the AfD a party of “right-wing extremists” who “use the language of the Nazis.” At the same time, Gabriel has called for Germany to take in even more migrants by airlifting them into the country directly from the Middle East.

By contrast, Horst Seehofer, the head of the Christian Socialist Union (CSU), the CDU’s sister party in Bavaria, said the rise of the AfD amounts to a “tectonic shift in the political landscape of Germany.” He warned that tectonic shifts trigger earthquakes that cause irreversible changes. Seehofer demanded that Merkel reverse course: “It cannot be that after such an election result, the answer to the electorate is: everything will go on as before.”

CSU politician Hans-Peter Uhl summed it up this way: “I expect the chancellor clearly to admit: ‘Yes, we have understood. We are going to return to the voters. Politics must move toward the voter, not the other way around. This is called democracy.'”

Merkel has not said if she plans to run for a fourth term in 2017.