David Petraeus, the former director of the CIA and former commander of CENTCOM, published a piece in the Washington Post last Friday entitled “Anti-Muslim Bigotry Aids Islamist Terrorists.”
Wrote Petraeus:
[I am] increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.
Petraeus’s target isn’t just Donald Trump’s proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration. He is referring to all speech that some Muslims might find offensive, and this has sweeping and ominous implications.
Petraeus doesn’t just oppose what Trump now characterizes as “just a suggestion“ solely as a policy measure. Petraeus is saying that such proposals shouldn’t even be made; that just to speak them is damaging:
[T]he ramifications of such rhetoric could be very harmful — and lasting.
He feels simply speaking such thoughts may:
… compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.
How will these words do that? Well, you see:
[T]hose who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.
Petraeus doesn’t offer any alternative suggestion as to how jihad terrorists can be prevented from entering the United States. He just doesn’t like Trump’s former proposal, and what he terms “hate speech against Muslims” in general, because he says it will enrage Muslims and make more of them join the jihad against America. So the upshot of Petraeus’ argument is that we must not say things to which Muslims might object, because this will just make more of them become jihadis.
His prescription for minimizing the jihad against the West is for the West to practice self-censorship in order to avoid offending Muslims.
Petraeus has done this before. When he headed up the international coalition in Afghanistan, he said this of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn the Qur’an:
[It] was hateful, it was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible.
He warned that the Qur’an-burning would endanger American troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. He issued a statement saying that he hoped:
… the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.
I opposed the Qur’an-burning, but not for the reasons Petraeus did.
I don’t like the burning of books. And I’d rather that the contents of the Qur’an, and the ways that jihadists use those contents to justify violence, be known.
However, Jones was free to do what he wanted to do. Petraeus would have done better to have told the Afghans that in America we have freedom of speech and expression, and that we put up with speech and expression that we dislike without trying to kill the speaker.
He would have done better to tell them that their murderous rage over any burning of the Qur’an was an outrageous overreaction, and that bloodshed over such burnings was a heinous crime, far dwarfing any crime they thought Jones was committing.
The idea that in wartime one should be careful not to do anything that the enemy is likely to respond to with irrational and even murderous anger may seem tactically wise at first glance, but ultimately it is a recipe for surrender. One is already accepting the enemy’s worldview and perspective and working to accommodate it, instead of working on various fronts — not just the military one — to show why it is wrong and should be opposed.
Of course, to that Petraeus and his ilk would likely respond: “Well, we are not at war with Islam or the Qur’an, and so to burn the book is a needless provocation.”
This ignores, however, the war that the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Muslim groups are waging today against the freedom of expression. This also ignores the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the Qur’an to justify violence and win recruits.
Without approving of the burning, Petraeus should have defended Jones’ freedom of expression, and used the burning as a teaching moment in Afghanistan. Petraeus should have said:
We are going to defend our vision of society no matter what you bring against us. The U.S. will always defend American citizens who are exercising their Constitutional freedoms.
The OIC’s effort to compel the West into censoring itself regarding criticism of Islam is going very well.
In the wake of the jihad attack on our free speech event in Garland, Texas last year, there were widespread condemnations of our event for daring to “provoke” Muslims. After the Danish Muhammad cartoon riots and the massacre of the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoonists, mainstream media outlets all over the West refused to publish the cartoons in solidarity with the victims and in defense of the freedom of speech. Instead, they opted to publish transparently hypocritical explanations of how they were declining to publish the cartoons out of “respect” for Muslims and Islam.
The lesson of all this is one that no less a figure than General Petraeus has imbibed and is now propagating himself: Muslims don’t like when we say we should stop Muslim immigration for awhile, and they join the jihad. So we must stop saying it so that they won’t join the jihad.
In reality, this argument will only encourage them to tell us they’re joining the jihad because of other things we do, because they now have proof this tactic works. They are in fact already doing this. In the wake of violent intimidation by Muslims, Petraeus is saying that the West’s proper response is to give those violent Muslims what they want. Conform our speech to suit them.
If we take Petraeus’ advice, it will not result in less jihad, as he claims, but more. More aggressive Muslim demands on the U.S., more rage, and more “revenge.” Petraeus is giving the West a recipe for setting the world on fire even more than it is now.
One of the main areas of contention between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan is the question of Muslim immigration. In early December, when Trump first made his proposal (now a “suggestion”) to stop all such immigration until we “understood what was going on,” one of the first to react in high dudgeon was Ryan, who declared: “This is not conservatism.”
He was applauded for his four-word pronouncement by those “conservatives” at the Washington Post, who called his response “near-perfect.” Actually, to me it seemed morally narcissistic and had little to with conservatism, pro or con. Ryan wanted to disassociate himself as quickly as possible from the ugly and seemingly racist Trump.
But let’s look more closely at what the speaker said during that response:
When we voted to pause the refugee program a few weeks ago, I made very clear at the time: there would not be a religious test. There would be a security test. And that is because freedom of religion is a fundamental Constitutional principle. It’s a founding principle of this country.
Aside from the obvious — if people are fighting and killing you in the name of a religion, how do you ignore the “religious test” — what about that “security test”? Is it really happening or are people slipping into the country by various means, including an open border, with no test whatsoever? What about reports of an ISIS camp eight miles from El Paso?
And, perhaps more importantly, did that “pause” Ryan voted for actually take place in any meaningful way? According to the New York Post a “surge operation” bringing Syrian refugees to America was already in operation this past April. By “surge operation,” Gina Kassem — regional refugee coordinator in Amman — told reporters, it was meant the resettlement process that normally took 18 to 24 months would be sped up to 3 months. (Some pause!) And the figure of 10,000 refugees that has often been proffered by the administration was a minimum, not a maximum.
What is the maximum and how will they be vetted? And just how do you “vet” during a “surge”? Is that what Ryan really meant by a “security test”? I doubt it, but Trump should ask him at their next reconciliation meeting. As they say, Paul’s got some “xplainin” to do.
Now this isn’t a simple question. The Syrian people have suffered mightily at the hands of various psychotic despots, secular and religious. Trump has called for supporting more extensive refugee camps in the region, an idea that makes more sense than bringing them here. (He has also called for the Gulf states to pay for them — good luck with that.)
The main point is that this is a significant campaign issue and intelligent solutions have to be discussed. Trump has put Rudy Giuliani in charge of studying this from his side, an excellent choice.
There may be a short-term fix, but there won’t be a short-term answer. This is a very long-term problem, the longest one we have, dwarfing the deficit and everything else — civilizational, really. Will we be America or will we go the way of Europe and turn semi-Islamic like France in Houellebecq’s novel?
It wouldn’t be hard. We have been living under an administration that has been an enabler of Islamism. Obama has chosen to ally himself with Islamists like Turkey’s Erdogan, Egypt’s Morsi and, most stunningly, Iran’s Khamenei, while abjuring Egypt’s al-Sisi, who seeks to reform Islam. Go figure.
On top of all that — it’s hard to believe this — there are reports our administration was colluding with Russia in an attempt to get Israel to give back the Golan Heights to Syria in some putative peace settlement. Syria? Needless to say, Mr. Netanyahu was not amused.
In any case, on the immediate question of Muslim immigration, Trump may have sounded excessive and even been excessive. That’s his technique — he likes to get our attention, then negotiate. But in this particular negotiation (not, for example, on entitlements) the basic talking points — and the American people — are on Donald’s side. Ryan should listen.
Map showing violent extremists in the U.S. from the recent report by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness
[T]he Washington Free Beacon states, “Congressional attempts to investigate the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals snagged on terror charges since 2014 have been stymied by the Obama administration. There remain at least 1,000 open investigations into ISIS members residing in the United States.”
**********************
Amid the unprecedented rise in foiled terrorist attacks in the United States, a recent report found at least 75 “homegrown violent extremists” were operating across the U.S. in 2015. Of those extremists, nearly half tried to travel overseas – presumably to join terror groups – but only four percent succeeded.
Close to one third were found to be plotting terrorist attacks in the United States and were caught either before or after executing the attack.
Figures issued by New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness show that 65 of these extremist were affiliated with the Islamic State, while the rest were linked to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Nusra Front, or other Islamic extremist groups and ideologies.
In addition, the New Jersey agency reported radicalized extremists were able to enter, operate and thrive in the U.S.
“In 2015, [homegrown violent extremists] demonstrated an ability to operate in New Jersey and throughout the United States while connecting with like-minded individuals online and acting independently from organized terrorist groups,” security officials said. “Since late 2014, a variety of radical groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have encouraged [extremists] to attack in their home countries.”
Extremists were found be operating particularly up and down the East Coast as well as in Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alabama, Kansas, Texas and southern California.
Commenting on the report, the Washington Free Beacon states, “Congressional attempts to investigate the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals snagged on terror charges since 2014 have been stymied by the Obama administration. There remain at least 1,000 open investigations into ISIS members residing in the United States.”
In other news, a former member of the 9/11 Commission that investigated the most lethal terrorist attack in the history of the U.S. said that, contrary to the official report, a classified section said six Saudi individuals may have been involved in the attack.
John Lehman, the former commission member, revealed that one of the Saudis involved is a man who worked at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California (near Los Angeles).
Lehman, along with former federal prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste called for a new investigation and the release of the 28 pages of classified documents from the original investigation.
Will the looming conclusion of the Obama presidency lead him to engineer an all-out war by Iran’s terror surrogates, Hamas and Hezbollah, against the embattled Jewish state? Will that war conveniently occur in December 2016, as Obama serves out the final days of his presidency?
Is it conceivable that the pro-Muslim president of the United States will use such a conflict to predictably and mendaciously blame Israel as a means to permanently fracture the U.S.-Israeli alliance in a manner that would be difficult for any successor to repair? As extreme as this may sound, it is entirely possible in view of Obama’s past acts of blatant hatred toward America’s one and only true democracy and ally in the Middle East.
As should be obvious by now, Obama believes that Islam has suffered from British and European Christian colonization and oppression. After being thoroughly prepared to be receptive to this message by his stridently anti-Western mother and maternal grandparents, such was the indoctrination Obama received from Khaled al-Mansour – a Muslim high-level adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and anti-Jewish hate-monger – during his formative years.
It was al-Mansour who helped Obama gain admittance to the Harvard Law School. Edward Said, an outspoken anti-Israel professor of Obama’s at Columbia University, and Rashid Khalidi, a former press agent for Yasser Arafat’s PLO, served as Obama’s mentor in the former case and friend in the latter.
These figures, whose entire professional adult lives had been essentially dedicated to eliminating Israel, focused on influencing Obama to support the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians – along with their thugocracy known as the Palestinian Authority. These overwhelmingly Muslim terrorists amount to little more than cannon fodder in the ongoing Islamist quest to effectively perpetrate yet another Holocaust.
Thus, while Obama weakens America and disparages Western values and the tenets of Judeo-Christian civilization, he always chooses to suppress the reality of Islamic triumphalism and its appalling and inhumane history of slavery, hatred of non-Muslims, brutal Muslim conquests, and slaughter dating back to its 7th-century origins in Arabia.
This is why no one should be surprised that he would bow to a Saudi king and venerate the Islamic call of the muezzin.
Given his background, it is no wonder that Obama fell for the monumental lie that the Jewish state is also a modern colonizer, just as the European powers were. After all, Obama’s other confidants included, as the principled and worthy Victor David Hanson recently pointed out, “the obscene Reverend Wright and reprobates like Bill Ayers and Father Michael Pfleger.”
But unlike the European colonizers who had no ancestral roots in the Middle Eastern territories they occupied, Israel is the biblical and post-biblical homeland of the Jewish people, and as the native people of its ancestral homeland, the Jews predate the Muslim invasion of Israel by millennia, as is clearly evident in the Bible, which could not have been written when and where it was otherwise.
Even though sovereignty was lost to them after the Roman destruction of the Jewish state, Jews have always lived in their native land in whatever numbers they could sustain under a succession of alien occupiers.
Despite these clearly established historical facts, modern reborn Israel and her democratically elected leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, have been treated with unprecedented contempt by Obama and his sycophants.
This was evident early on with Obama’s support of and friendship to the Islamist Erdoğan in Turkey, who has reduced once secular Turkey to a growing totalitarian Islamic state that has openly supported terrorism against Israel, as demonstrated by the Gaza flotilla incident of 2010.
Erdoğan’s perfidy – which has included all but open support for ISIS – has in no way dampened Obama’s preferential treatment of this dictator, in contrast to his appalling treatment of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Routinely, the State Department promotes the hypocrisy of the Obama administration by ignoring the aggression and terror of the Palestinian Authority, led by the Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas and Islamic Jihad thugs who rule over the Gaza Strip.
In deplorable contrast, the State Department routinely attacks Israel for building homes in Jerusalem for young couples, or chiding Israel to exercise “restraint” when Israel is forced to defend itself from relentless Palestinian brutality and murder of Israeli civilians. Was France or Belgium similarly asked to exercise “restraint” in the face of recent Muslim terrorist attacks in those countries?
This spitefulness was exhibited when the U.S., at the behest of a high-level individual in the Obama administration (wonder who!), denied visas to Israelis during Israel’s defensive Gaza war in 2014 against Hamas aggression.
Even as the barrage of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli villages and towns from Gaza continued, this outrage was compounded when President Obama banned the much needed resupply of armaments to Israel at the height of the Hamas terror blitz and temporarily banned U.S. airlines from flying to Israel on the flimsiest of pretexts (23 international carriers – including British Airways – continued flights to Israel in spite of this ban).
Obama has also treated America’s other traditional allies with insolent disdain and cozied up to the worst enemy of freedom and liberty – namely, the Islamo-Nazi regime of Iran.
Iran’s ongoing implicit threats of nuclear warfare – against the U.S. as well as Israel – including its aggressive development of potentially nuclear-armed ICBMs, which can eventually reach the U.S., does not faze this incumbent in the White House.
The fact that this supposed nuclear “agreement” with Iran was reached, even as his very own State Department admits that Iran has yet to actually sign the agreement and even as Iranian mobs continue to chant “Death to America” to the approving nods of the Iranian mullahs, also fits into Barack Hussein Obama’s distorted world view – a deliberate policy of lies, deception, and dissimilitude.
This was admitted to by one of his closest advisers, Ben Rhodes, who recently disclosed that the Obama administration had deliberately deceived Congress and the American public about the Iran deal – as if this was something to be proud of.
Perhaps one of the most blatant examples of Obama’s anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Israeli ideology was his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his reluctance to sell arms to President El-Sisi, who overthrew the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi and his vicious anti-Christian regime after it had been in power for only two years and had wrought havoc on that country.
Obama’s support for Morsi should have come as no surprise, given the endless flow of Muslim Brotherhood activists visiting Obama’s White House and the filling of senior positions within the administration, as documented by former CIA analyst Clare Lopez.
Even today, El-Sisi fights al-Qaeda terrorism in the Sinai and the Hamas terrorists in Gaza without any apparent support or approval from Obama.
These examples of the president’s bias, his pro-Islamic sympathies, and his agenda point to a seminal hatred of not only America itself, but most pointedly of the Jewish state – this hatred may override all other practical considerations in the remaining few months of his term in office.
His parting shot at Israel may well be to force her expulsion from the United Nations and turn the Jewish state into another Taiwan.
As suggested at the beginning of this article, he might well encourage both Iranian terror proxies, Hamas in Gaza and Hezb’allah in Lebanon, to attack Israel with a massive missile bombardment sometime this coming December.
Hamas, for its own part, has thousands of lethal rockets and mortars and is feverishly building tunnels into Israeli territory in the hope of sending its terrorist hordes into Israeli villages and towns and slaughtering as many civilians as possible. Hezb’allah, on the other hand, is estimated to have more than 150 thousand missiles and rockets aimed at all of Israel, hidden in Lebanese schools, hospitals, and apartments.
Even as the deliberate use of civilians as human shields is explicitly spelled out by the Geneva Conventions as a crime against humanity, and though Israel would have no choice but to inflict substantial civilian casualties in her own defense, this circumstance would naturally be used as a pretext by the U.N. to punish Israel in an unprecedented manner.
They would do so knowing that for the first time, an American president would likely stand by and approve whatever the U.N. anti-Israel “lynch mob” might concoct in order to further isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state. This might include severe economic sanctions or embargoes or might even involve expulsion of Israel from the U.N. entirely.
It should be emphasized here that once the American national election is over, there will be nothing to stop Obama from doing this. Obama’s entire foreign policy has revolved around undermining Israel. Such an action on his part in the closing weeks of his administration can be seen as not only possible, but likely, given the pattern of his behavior toward Israel for the whole of his presidency.
This latter punishment would suit Israel’s enemies very well, even though it would change nothing on the ground. An Israel reduced to a Taiwan-like status – i.e., a de facto sovereign state not officially recognized as such by the U.N. – would obviate the need for Gulf Arabs (who are covertly making common cause with Israel against Iran) to establish any formal diplomatic relations with her.
The “Zionist entity,” as their official propaganda impudently puts it, would remain just that. This might even, in rhetorical terms, satisfy the requirement of Iran’s mullahs to “wipe Israel from the map.” What is more, once Israel is expelled from the U.N., it would be very difficult for any future U.S. president, no matter how pro-Israel, to successfully support Israel’s re-admittance into the U.N.
As is the case with Taiwan, the U.S. may maintain a commitment to supplying Israel with arms and supporting her efforts at self-defense, but in practical terms, that may be the extent of the relationship, even in the best-case scenario surrounding Israel’s expulsion from the U.N. under Obama during his final days in office.
While such a turn of events may sound far-fetched to even some of those most critical of Obama, it is entirely possible in view of Obama’s past acts of blatant hatred toward America’s one and only true ally and democracy in the Middle East.
TEHRAN (Tasnim) A top Iranian cleric emphasized that the US remains to be the archenemy of Islam, Iran and Shiism.
“The US is the toughest enemy of Islam and Muslims, and provides financial and military support for those following that path (countering Islam),” Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani said in an address to a gathering of worshippers in Tehran on Friday.
An obvious sign of US hostility towards Muslims is Washington’s full support for Israel, the cleric explained.
Highlighting Washington’s opposition to “an Islamic Iran”, Ayatollah Movahedi Kermani said the US seeks to foment Islamophobia and Iranophobia by attributing acts of terrorism to Islam.
“The US is arrogant and bully, (because) it allows itself to have nuclear weapons, but forbids the other countries to possess even conventional defensive weapons,” the cleric noted.
In comments earlier this month, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei also slammed the US government for its continued hostilities toward Muslims and the Islamic Republic of Iran, saying that Washington is seeking to tarnish the image of Islam, and spread Iranophobia and Shiaphobia.
“Today, Islamophobia, Iranophobia and Shiaphobia, are among the definite policies of the US and its puppet regimes,” the Leader said, adding, “Today, corrupt (terrorist) groups that are committing heinous crimes in the name of Islam are supported by Western powers.”
Imam Khamenei also described the vigilance of Muslim nations, Iranians in particular, against the hegemonic powers’ corrupt acts as the main reason behind such hostilities, saying this is the reason why Iran is threatened to be boycotted when it opposes the US policies in the Middle East.
[T]he Gulen schools continue to open at the monumental rate of eight to ten a year throughout the U.S. and leading politicians – – both Democratic and Republicans – – regularly appear at Gulen gatherings to offer their endorsement of the militant imam’s educational endeavors.
In another he instructed his followers: “You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere.”
His instructions have been well-heeded.
Gulen’s tentacles now extend into “all the power centers” of the U. S. government, including the Oval Office.
Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s Muslim advisor, has endorsed the Gulen movement which critics believe seeks to restore the Ottoman Empire and to establish a universal caliphate.
Recently Ms. Mogahed, the first woman to wear a veil in the White House, said: “I think the Gülen movement offers people a model of what is possible if a dedicated group of people work together for the good of the society. I also think that it is an inspiration for other people and Muslims for what they can accomplish.”
Asked about the movement’s hidden agenda, Ms. Mogahed told Sunday’s Zaman, a Turkish newspaper owned by Gulen, that she usually does not attach any importance to such allegations.
Gulen and his millions of minions have helped to topple Turkey’s secular government, establish thousands of madrassahs (Muslim religious schools) throughout Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, and form a new country known as East Turkistan, a radical Islamic state.
His schools serve to indoctrinate students in Turkish language, culture and religion so that they may take part in the restoration of the Ottoman Empire.
Nurettin Veren, a top administrator of the Gulen schools says: “These schools are like shop windows. Recruitment and Islamization activities are carried out through night classes.”
Rachel Sharon-Krespin, MEMRI’s chief Turkey analyst, writes: “His (Gulen’s) followers target youth in the eighth through twelfth grades, mentor and indoctrinate them in the ???kevi, educate them in the Fethullah schools, and prepare them for future careers in legal, political, and educational professions in order to create the ruling classes of the future Islamist, Turkish state.”
Over 150 Gulen schools have been established throughout the United States – – and all receive full funding from US taxpayers.
The schools are manned, for the most part, by Turkish administrators and teachers who arrive in the US with H1B visas – – visas for individuals who are needed to occupy positions that cannot be filled by domestic workers. In truth, many of these imported educators teach in subject areas, such as elementary education, where unemployed and fully certified American teachers are standing in the unemployment lines.
Most of the imported Turkish educators are expected to kick-back 60% of their salaries to the Gulen movement.
The Gulen schools are so radical in their political and religious objectives that they have been outlawed in Russia and Uzbekistan. Even the Netherlands, a nation that embraces pluralism and tolerance, has moved to cut funding to the Gulen schools because of their imminent threat to the social order.
Yet the Gulen schools continue to open at the monumental rate of eight to ten a year throughout the U.S. and leading politicians – – both Democratic and Republicans – – regularly appear at Gulen gatherings to offer their endorsement of the militant imam’s educational endeavors.
The new spokeswomen for the Cosmos Foundation, a non-profit Gulen enterprise that operates thirty-three charter schools in Texas, is Karen Hughes, who previously served as President George W. Bush’s Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.
Ms. Hughes has declined to state how much money she is receiving for her efforts to further the Gulen schools.
The Texas Education Agency shelled out $68 million in 2010 to the Cosmos Foundation.
Few Texas tax-payers have uttered a word of protest.
President Obama is willing to gamble with the lives of American citizens. He is intent on emptying Guantanamo of as many of the detainees as possible, even as some of the released jihadists have returned to the battlefield to fight against our soldiers. Now the Obama administration is reportedly planning to accelerate the screening process for Syrians claiming refugee status, so that they can be rapidly resettled in communities across the United States.
The Washington Free Beacon has reported that, according to its sources, “The Obama administration has committed to bring at least 10,000 Syrian refugees onto American soil in fiscal year 2016 by accelerating security screening procedures from 18-24 months to around three months.”
The current resettlement vetting process for self-proclaimed refugees begins with an initial screening by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The applications of some who make it through this preliminary UN screen are referred to United States authorities for further consideration and possible resettlement. UNCHR’s role in the front end of the vetting process should be reason enough for alarm.
The United Nations has called for more open borders to accommodate the millions of “refugees” and other migrants whom have left the Middle East and North Africa. To this end, UNCHR is said to be looking for alternative avenues to admit Syrian refugees that are faster than the current refugee “resettlement” vetting process. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi suggested a number of such alternatives last March, at a high-level meeting held in Geneva to discuss “global responsibility sharing through pathways for admission of Syrian refugees.”
Among the alternative “pathways” listed by the UNCHR High Commissioner for Refugees were “labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons.” He added, “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.”
The net effect of expanding the grounds for admitting Syrian refugees to include job and student related visas could be to bump American citizens from jobs and scholarships that are given to the refugees instead.
Apparently, the Obama administration is onboard with looking for alternatives to the current refugee resettlement system that depends on cooperation with the states. Perhaps it is reacting to the fact that numerous states have recently elected to opt out of refugee resettlement programs, including New Jersey.
“The United States joins UNHCR in calling for new ways nations, civil society, the private sector, and individuals can together address the global refugee challenge,” the State Department wrote in a Media Note following the Geneva conference. The State Department added that it has “created a program to allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to file refugee applications for their Syrian family members.”
Who are such “family members?” Would they include siblings and cousins of fighting age? Do we really want to add more loopholes to the existing visa system, which was already breached by the female jihadist who took part in the San Bernardino massacre after being admitted to the United States on a “fiancé” visa? Apparently so, if the Obama administration gets its way. Speeding up the “refugee” admission process and avoiding state roadblocks in the current refugee resettlement pathway appear to have become its top priority.
Meanwhile, Obama administration officials tell us not to worry. They assure us they have a “robust” screening process in place to vet Syrians claiming to be refugees. Don’t believe them. They are deliberately turning a blind eye to the warnings of experts such as FBI Director James Comey, who said last year, during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing, that the federal government lacked the data to adequately vet “refugees” seeking entry to the U.S.
“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey told the committee. “So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned earlier this year that he considered ISIS and its branches to be the number 1 terrorist threat. Clapper pointed to ISIS’s success in “taking advantage of the torrent of migrants to insert operatives into that flow.”
Even those “refugees” who enter the United States without pre-existing ties to ISIS are vulnerable to indoctrination by jihadists already in this country. Somali “refugees” are a prime example. As Andrew Liepman, who was serving as deputy director for intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center until he retired from government service in 2012, said during the first year of Obama’s presidency: “Despite significant efforts to facilitate their settlement into American communities, many Somali immigrants face isolation.”
Jihadists have been busy “recruiting and radicalizing young people,” Liepman added.
Nevertheless, seven years later, the Obama administration continues to send as many as 700 Somali “refugees” per month to cities across the United States, with the largest number settling in Minnesota where large concentrations of Somalis already live.
Barack Obama has said that it is wrong to “start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.” He refuses to associate Islam or jihad with acts of terrorism or with what he calls violent extremism. He rails against “negative stereotypes of Islam” and “those who slander the prophet of Islam.” But telling the truth about the violent and supremacist strains in Islamic ideology, rooted in the Koran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, is neither stereotyping nor slander. It is identifying the enemy we are fighting. And wanting to make sure that we have a foolproof vetting system in place before admitting more Muslims from the sectarian conflict-ravaged areas in the Middle East or North Africa is neither fear-mongering nor discrimination. It is common sense defense of the American people from undue risk of attacks in our homeland, which is the primary duty of every U.S. president as commander-in-chief including Barack Obama.
U.S. President Barack Obama last week visited Saudi Arabia, an unusual nation with which the United States has had a relationship that can be accurately characterized as both strategic and strange — and one that is now severely strained. To understand how we got to this juncture requires at least a smattering of modern history.
It’s polite to say that Ibn Saud, in the first third of the 20th century, united most of the tribes living on the Arabian Peninsula. It’s more accurate to say he defeated those tribes, conquering their lands, along with a source of enormous future wealth that lay under some of them.
Ibn Saud allied with the British against the Ottoman Empire whose sultan, based in Istanbul, also had been proclaimed caliph — ruler of all the world’s Muslims. That would have undercut the legitimacy of the House of Saud had a deal not been struck with the Wahhabis, until then a tiny, fundamentalist sect. The Wahhabis blessed the Saudis and granted them governing authority. In exchange, they would be well-funded and their reading of Islam would become the state religion.
In 1932, Ibn Saud gave his dominions a name: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. After World War II, a time when the sun was setting on the British Empire, the Saudis turned to the United States. The oil the Saudis had appropriated would now be extracted and sold to those in the West who had developed productive uses for it. In exchange, the United States would serve as Saudi Arabia’s defender and protector.
For a few decades, this arrangement worked reasonably well. Then, in 1979, two pivotal events occurred. The first was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, an uprising that, under the leadership of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, became an Islamic Revolution. That meant that the first modern state committed to waging global jihad was majority Shia and Persian — a shock and a humiliation to many in the Sunni and Arab worlds.
Then, in November of that year, around the same time as students loyal to the Aytollah were taking over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the Grand Mosque in Mecca was seized by what might be called ultra-Wahhabis. Putting down this rebellion was a bloody affair. But because of a Saudi information blockade, most of the world heard only vague and often incorrect details.
The full story would be told in 2007 by Yaroslav Trofimov in his indispensable book, “The Siege of Mecca.” In the aftermath of the 9/11/01 attacks, he recognized the episode as “the first large-scale operation by an international jihadi movement in modern times.”
In response to the 1979 upheavals, the Saudis might have been expected to oppose if not suppress fundamentalists eager to fight holy wars. Instead, they attempted to demonstrate their jihadi bona fides by installing Wahhabi clerics in mosques around the world, establishing madrasas that prepared young people to kill and die to defend and/or spread the “true” Islam, and funding mujahedeen in Afghanistan.
From these seeds would grow al-Qaida, and the fruits of al-Qaida — the Islamic State group among them. Such jihadis despise the Saudis and other Muslims who, they believe, are shirking their duty to smite infidels, apostates and heretics.
At least some Saudis were later to recognize their error. Trofimov quotes Prince Khaled al Faisal saying in 2004 that while those who seized the Grand Mosque were eliminated, “we have overlooked the ideology that was behind the crime. We’ve let it spread in the country, ignoring it as if it did not exist.” Nevertheless, Saudi-appointed clerics continue to this day to preach hate and incite violence.
As for Iran’s rulers, they have two large axes to grind with the Saudis. One traces back to the 7th century when a dispute arose within the newly created Muslim community over who was to succeed the Prophet Muhammad. Since then, the theological schism has only widened. The Shia mullahs of Iran believe no Sunnis should be custodians of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina — least of all the descendants of a warrior tribe who drink and gamble in Europe while insisting that royal blood flows through their veins.
A less ancient Iranian grievance: Most of Arabia’s oil lies in the Eastern Province where the majority of the population is Shia. These Arabians are hardly “Saudis,” having been conquered by them in 1913 and suffering discrimination and persecution at their hands ever since. In January, Nimr al-Nimr, a Shia cleric from the Eastern Province who had been critical of the Saudi government, was executed.
President Obama’s policy response to this complicated and fraught reality: He recently told a reporter that Saudis and Iranians need to “share the neighborhood.” It’s tempting to call that the “Mr. Rogers Doctrine” and imagine what was said about it within the palaces of Riyadh — and those of Tehran. Also worth pondering: the message that phrase sends to the neighborhood’s minorities — the Christians now under genocidal assault, the Kurds, the Druze and, of course, the Israelis.
The Saudis have never been America’s friends in the sense of having common values or mutual affection. But they have been America’s allies in the sense of having common enemies and some common — and vital — interests. Now the Saudis face what they see as an existential threat from Iranian theocrats who proudly proclaim their abhorrence of America.
Yet, the American president is enriching those Iranian theocrats, strengthening them and making concession after concession without demanding reciprocity. It’s reasonable to guess that the Saudis are feeling puzzled and perhaps betrayed. If so, they are not alone.
(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?
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments