/Pol/ was right again

/Pol/ was right again. (Link in comments)

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Test

Test test

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MY PRESIDENT

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Veterans Turn To Marijuana To Ditch ‘Cocktail Of Drugs’ From The VA Photo of Steve Birr STEVE BIRR

The bud of a marijuana plant.
Shutterstock/Steve Ikeguchi

Proposals to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana and open up access to cannabis products for veterans are gaining bipartisan traction despite uncertainty from the Trump administration.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a measure July 13 that would let doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs give patients approval to access medical marijuana in states where it is legal. A proposal from Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz seeks to reschedule marijuana, currently classified as a Schedule I substance alongside heroin, as a substance recognized by the federal government as having therapeutic value, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Building bipartisan momentum for marijuana issues concerning veterans comes on the heels of American Legion, a veterans group with more than 2 million members, formally launching a campaign in May advocating the government open access to the substance for returning service members. It is unclear if the Trump administration, which has been adversarial towards legal pot, will support these efforts.

“We were hearing these compelling stories from veterans about how cannabis has made their lives better,” Joseph Plenzler, a spokesman for American Legion, told the Los Angeles Times Friday. “That they were able to use it to get off a whole cocktail of drugs prescribed by VA doctors, that it is helping with night terrors, or giving them relief from chronic pain.”

The current federal classification of marijuana greatly restricts the ability of researchers to study the medical application of cannabis with federal funding. It also prevents doctors at the VA from recommending marijuana for treatment, even if it can cut down or replace a patients daily intake of opioid painkillers.

“It is a travesty,” Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a longtime advocate for greater marijuana access, told the Los Angeles Times. “They are given opiates instead of maybe something they can derive from marijuana. … And our veterans end up killing themselves because now they are addicted to an opiate.”

A growing chorus of veteran groups are petitioning the government to ease restrictions on federal marijuana policy. Many are unable to get relief from painkillers or traditional treatments allowed under current federal law, leaving them at the mercy of their particular state’s policy.

Texans For Responsible Marijuana Policy, a veterans group, recently launched an effort to legalize medical marijuana in their state to draw attention to the daily struggles facing so many veterans.

GOP Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill last year allowing medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD in New Jersey, which officials are currently working to implement. Of the 28 states with legal medical marijuana programs, 14 currently offer pot for treating PTSD.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/veterans-turn-to-marijuana-to-ditch-cocktail-of-drugs-from-the-va/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Common Sense Solutions to the Illegal Alien Crisis

By Dave Gibson

We are so often told that illegal immigration is a “complicated” issue and that it would either be “unfair” or “too hard” to defend this nation from foreign nationals who have no legal right to be here.

Well, with citizens being raped and murdered by illegal aliens on a daily basis, and the fewest number of Americans working since 1977, it is time to try!

What follows is a short list of solutions, which could be easily undertaken, if only we had someone in the White House willing to carry them out.

First, place the military on the border

Rather than sending a few hundred National Guardsmen to the 2,000 mile-long border under orders to never stop anyone entering this country illegally, the way Presidents Bush and Obama did, if, say, 20,000 troops along with their tanks, helicopters, and U.S. Air Force overflights were utilized along the border (the same way we do for other countries), illegal entries would come to a screeching halt.

During a July 2010 news conference at the Pentagon, Gen. Craig McKinley, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters that National Guard troops would begin a yearlong deployment on August 1, along the 2,000-mile-long U.S./Mexican border, The Dallas Morning News reported.

While the 1,200 troops were armed, they could only use their weapons for self-defense. The troops were distributed along the border as follows:

• Arizona…524

• Texas…250

• California…224

• New Mexico…72

With another 130 troops assigned to something called a “national liaison office.”

One item which Gen. Craig let slip during the press conference was the fact that the states of Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico combined, were currently contributing 54,000 National Guard troops to the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the federal government could only supply 1,200 troops back to that region, though that corner of our nation is being invaded by drug dealers and human smugglers.

The number of troops sent to the expansive and incredibly dangerous border amounted to 0.6 soldiers for every mile of the border. This, combined with the questionable rules of engagement under which they were deployed, made the mission nothing more than a pitiable, political gesture from the White House.

In 2005, the Bush administration began to use U.S. combat troops to patrol the borders which define Iraq. In fact, at the time, he announced that there would be a complete lock-down on Iraq’s borders during that nation’s elections. Obama has also used our troops in that same capacity, as well as in providing border security for Afghanistan. While protecting the borders of foreign lands has been a priority for both Presidents Bush and Obama, neither has ever shown a portion of that commitment to their own country.

The Mexican border could and should be made a permanent duty station for U.S. troops. This would allow the Border Patrol to fully staff the official entry points, which would dramatically reduce the amount of drugs as well as the number of criminals coming into this country through the official crossing checkpoints on a daily basis.

It would seem that the taxpayers of Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico are working for the security of foreign lands, rather than for that of their own states.

We could simply take the troops from Germany, where 38,000 U.S. troops are stationed, or any number of other locations around the world (28,500 are now stationed in Korea), and use our military to protect our own border.1

If, after 60 years, the Republic of Korea cannot defend itself from North Korea’s penniless, half-starved population, then they are no strategic ally of the U.S. and should be given six months’ notice that we are leaving to defend our own people.

Second, mandatory prison sentences for CEOs who hire illegal aliens

Whether it is a landscaping company run out of someone’s kitchen in Cicero, Illinois; a 30-unit independent hotel in Virginia Beach; or a corporate giant such as Tyson Foods Inc., once caught with illegal aliens in their employ, the head of that company should spend the next ten years of his/her life in prison.

Additionally, a percentage of that company’s profits commensurate with the percentage of their employees who are illegal aliens should be seized.

Third, cut off all federal funds to cities that have “sanctuary policies” for illegal aliens

If a city such as Chicago, which has such a policy in place, refuses to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by not allowing police officers either to inquire into or report the immigration status of those arrested, thus shielding criminal aliens from notification and eventual deportation, their funds will be immediately suspended. No more federal money for roads, schools, no special grants, no construction projects funded with federal money—nothing!

Only once all municipal agencies in that city are found to be in compliance, will federal funds be restored.

Fourth, require anyone registering a child in a public school to provide proof of U.S. citizenship

Illegal aliens have been getting a free education for their children on the backs of American taxpayers for far too long. The practice has led to overcrowded classrooms, “English as a second language” courses in all of the border states, and, as we saw in 2014, an epidemic of paralytic Enterovirus.

The amount of money spent per child in public school annually varies from state to state, as well as district to district. However, it averages several thousands of dollars per child. Why should American taxpayers be subsidizing the families of illegal aliens?

If parents were required to provide proof of citizenship to register the child, many illegal aliens would simply leave the country. You take away the things that draw them here and most will deport themselves.

The state of California is now bankrupt largely due to years of allowing Mexicans to illegally move their families to the state. Overwhelmed with children who speak only Spanish, they can no longer provide a decent education for American-born children.

Fifth, begin mass deportations

Again, if you take away the goodies (jobs, free education, in-state college tuition, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.), most will return to Mexico and Central America on their own. However, there will remain a number of illegal aliens who will refuse to leave, a great many of whom will be hardcore criminals (gang members, drug dealers, etc.). These human predators will only return home if forcibly removed.

We have heard so many times that it is “impossible to deport 12 million people.”

First, the number of illegal aliens in this country is closer to 40 million; second, nothing is impossible.

As was proven six decades ago (during Operation Wetback), most will leave after they are denied the services they now steal with ease. The rest would be deported upon arrest for other crimes.2

Additionally, the next president must be willing to take military action against the Mexican cartels, as well as the government forces which protect them.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson ordered General John J. Pershing to lead an invasion into Mexico, against Pancho Villa’s forces. Villa’s bandits were making constant incursions into the U.S. and regularly robbing, raping, and killing Americans living in towns along the border. These criminals operated openly due to rampant corruption among Mexican political and military leaders.

Units of the Mexican military regularly cross the border into this country. The well-armed units escort drug and human smugglers and even fire upon U.S. Border Patrol agents. It is estimated that Latin American drug cartels spend more than $500 million annually paying off high-ranking Mexican military and police officials.

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said in a 2002 interview:

There’s no doubt Mexican military units along the border are being controlled by drug cartels, and not by Mexico City. The military units operate freely, with little or no direction, and several of them have made numerous incursions into the United States.

In January 2008, the Department of Homeland Security reported that since 1996, there had been 278 known incursions by the Mexican military into the United States. They are often seen providing armed escort to drug smugglers. Incredibly, the Mexican military now enters our nation at will, with no response from the U.S. government.

Illegal aliens account for 29 percent of our total prison population. Many more Mexican criminals still roam our streets. The 18th Street Gang and MS-13 have already taken over the streets of Los Angeles, and now they are staking out territory across the country. One million Mexican criminals are the equivalent of 50 divisions of enemy soldiers within this country.

A 2009 Department of Justice (DOJ) report identified 231 U.S. cities in which the cartels had fully functioning distribution operations, with the list stretching from Tucson to Buffalo. By 2013, the DOJ admitted in another report, cartels were operating in an astounding 1,286 American cities.3

In addition to the threat coming from the powerful cartels, thousands of American children are sexually assaulted every year by illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America, as these criminals bring their cultural attitudes towards women and children to this country.

For example, between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2014, there were 4,317 charges of child sexual assault filed against illegal aliens in North Carolina, according to the citizen’s advocacy group known as NCFIRE.4

As responsible citizens, we should demand that central to any candidate’s presidential platform must be a comprehensive, aggressive plan to deal with the criminal threat posed to this nation by Mexico.

A few suggestions follow:

• A two-pronged campaign utilizing U.S. Special Forces and aerial bombing to decapitate the cartels’ leadership and destroy their production and distribution operations within Mexico.

• An invasion and occupation 20 miles deep into Mexico along the nearly 2,000-mile-long border, in order to create a buffer zone free from drug and human smugglers.

• Completion of the double-layered, Israeli-Gaza-style fence along the border, which was authorized by the 2006 Secure Fence Act (of which Obama illegally halted construction upon taking office).5

If these are not implemented and we allow yet another open-borders, Chamber of Commerce candidate to become president, we may as well start looking for another country, as this one will be lost.

We have had a succession of administrations which have failed to enforce our immigration laws, resulting in basically the erasure of our sovereign border with Mexico. Put simply, this country is slowly (or not so slowly) becoming a Third World nation, as both legal and illegal immigrants from the Third World now dominate new arrivals.

We have the infrastructure, the resources, and the right to deport as many illegal aliens from this nation as we want. The only thing we are now lacking is a federal government with the courage to do so.

The United States simply will not survive more of the same.

Endnotes

1. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

3. http://www.mexicogulfreporter.com/2013/01/mexican-drug-cartels-operate-in-1286-us.html

4. http://ufp.flywheelsites.com/north-carolina-4000-charges-child-sex-assault-filed-illegal-aliens-past-year/

5. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6061/text

 

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The 2nd Amendment Comes To Europe: Czech Republic Expected To Enshrine Right To Bear Arms In Constitution

ar-15-soldier-militia

Most people inside and outside of the US believe that this country’s gun ownership rate is unique, but that’s not exactly true. Though America has the most privately owned guns per capita, there are other countries that aren’t too far behind us, such as Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, and many Western nations like Finland and Switzerland. In most cases, these countries don’t have access to the same kind of firearms that we do, but nonetheless there are a ton of guns floating around in these places.

What really separates the US from every other country in the world, is that we have the right to bear arms preserved in our constitution. Technically, Honduras and Mexico have the same right in their constitutions, but in both cases it comes with a lot of restrictions. Their right to bear arms doesn’t have any teeth. The Swiss are known for letting many of their citizens own guns, but gun ownership for most Swiss citizens is more of a duty than a right.

America stands alone in this regard. We’re the only country with a constitution that gives civilians a clear and explicit right to own and carry firearms. In every other nation, civilians don’t own firearms unless their governments let them.

That however, is about to change. While most EU governments are eyeing more restrictive gun laws, the Czech Republic is about to add the right to bear arms to its constitution.

Czech Lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution in a move directed against tighter regulations from the European Union.

The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths of the members in order to pass into law, Die Presse reports.

Similar to the U.S. second amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.”

The amendment also notes that the right is there to ensure the safety of the country, similar to the provision of a “well-regulated militia” in the American amendment.

After the bill passes through the senate, it’s expected to be signed into law by President Milos Zeman, who changed his mind on privately owned guns last year. “Earlier I spoke often about limiting the ability to have large quantities of weapons. But after the terrorist attacks, I have changed the idea.”

Though the Czech Republic has always had loose gun laws compared to its neighbors, this law represents a major shift in the European public’s stance on firearm ownership. If anything, it could be just the tip of the iceberg. All across the continent, as migrants grow more violent and as terror attacks become more frequent, we’re seeing Europeans buy more firearms. In some cases, firearm sales have spiked by 350%.

If there’s any silver lining to the massive influx of migrants into Europe over the past few years, it’s that it has taught ordinary Europeans how important it is to let civilians own firearms.

Most people inside and outside of the US believe that this country’s gun ownership rate is unique, but that’s not exactly true. Though America has the most privately owned guns per capita, there are other countries that aren’t too far behind us, such as Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, and many Western nations like Finland and Switzerland. In most cases, these countries don’t have access to the same kind of firearms that we do, but nonetheless there are a ton of guns floating around in these places. What really separates the US from every other country in the world, is that we have the right to bear arms preserved in our constitution. Technically, Honduras and Mexico have the same right in their constitutions, but in both cases it comes with a lot of restrictions. Their right to bear arms doesn’t have any teeth. The Swiss are known for letting many of their citizens own guns, but gun ownership for most Swiss citizens is more of a duty than a right. America stands alone in this regard. We’re the only country with a constitution that gives civilians a clear and explicit right to own and carry firearms. In every other nation, civilians don’t own firearms unless their governments let them. That however, is about to change. While most EU governments are eyeing more restrictive gun laws, the Czech Republic is about to add the right to bear arms to its constitution. Czech Lawmakers have passed legislation in the lower parliament that would see the right to bear firearms enshrined in the country’s constitution in a move directed against tighter regulations from the European Union. The legislation was passed with 139 deputies agreeing to the amendment to the constitution with only nine deputies voting against. The amendment will now be considered by the Czech Senate where it will require a supermajority of three-fifths of the members in order to pass into law, Die Presse reports. Similar to the U.S. second amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms, the Czech legislation reads: “Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, retain and bear arms and ammunition.” The amendment also notes that the right is there to ensure the safety of the country, similar to the provision of a “well-regulated militia” in the American amendment. After the bill passes through the senate, it’s expected to be signed into law by President Milos Zeman, who changed his mind on privately owned guns last year. “Earlier I spoke often about limiting the ability to have large quantities of weapons. But after the terrorist attacks, I have changed the idea.” Though the Czech Republic has always had loose gun laws compared to its neighbors, this law represents a major shift in the European public’s stance on firearm ownership. If anything, it could be just the tip of the iceberg. All across the continent, as migrants grow more violent and as terror attacks become more frequent, we’re seeing Europeans buy more firearms. In some cases, firearm sales have spiked by 350%. If there’s any silver lining to the massive influx of migrants into Europe over the past few years, it’s that it has taught ordinary Europeans how important it is to let civilians own firearms.

 

(Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hate Crime Hoaxes and Tribal Threats Expand in the Digital Age

By Brenda Walker 
Volume 27, Number 3 (Spring 2017)
Issue theme: “A new era for immigration enforcement”

It’s a sad commentary on modern society that victimhood is so highly valued. The inner child experiences a tiny bump and looks for a reassuring hug. In the media age, that emotionalism is amplified. In fact, social media is the giant magnifying glass over every minuscule of human experience — Facebook encourages us to share a photo of what we ate for lunch, and when that doesn’t get enough clicks, something more dramatic is necessary.

A revved up political climate adds to the intensity. College students, being hormonal drama queens anyway, often want to draw attention to themselves. A mean-spirited message, including a swastika nailed to the dorm door, can result in a campus-wide explosion of leftie outrage, with marches and enthusiastic denunciations of hate. In 2014, Capital University student Jalen Mitchell said he found a racist note on his apartment door, threatening “We will kill you, n—!” He later confessed to the fake hate, and admitted he had fabricated several earlier hoaxes. “It was a way to try to get attention, to say ‘Someone notice me, I’m dying on the inside,’” he told the student newspaper of the Columbus, Ohio school. But mostly he sowed fear among fellow students about non-existent racist threats on campus.

School diversity multiplies the possibilities every which way: Mexicans, Muslims, and blacks all have an opportunity to cash in with an attention-grabbing story. In 2013 a black kid running for his high school student council in New Jersey sent himself some racist emails to attract votes.

Usually, campus fakers get no punishment following discovery, but in a high-profile 2004 case, the fraudster was arrested, tried, and convicted: Claremont Mc-Kenna College Professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison for concocting a fake hate crime in which she was the supposed victim. She was convicted of filing a false police report and attempted insurance fraud regarding her car. She had claimed her Honda was vandalized with racist graffiti, but witnesses saw her doing the damage herself, which harmed the victim narrative considerably. Until the unpleasant facts came out a few days after the incident, Dunn was a liberal hero, inspiring campus rallies against hate, which made the participants feel very virtuous.

Furthermore, the normal human desire to get love and attention runs off the rails when it is transmogrified in the political arena. Tribe-based organizations like La Raza collect reports of hate crimes of varying veracity to use in their psy-ops to wear down opposition among citizens to lawbreaking foreigners. Deporting illegal aliens is treated like a hate crime, for instance, and we see sob-story cases quite frequently on the front pages of major liberal newspapers.

Rumors of hate crimes and danger against Muslims have been a major tool of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas-affiliated organization that nevertheless is the go-to quote source for liberal media on Muslims matters.

Last June, FBI Director James Comey noted that his agency was investigating 1,000 ISIS terror cases in all 50 states, but to CAIR, the biggest problem today in America is “Islamophobia,” a fake construct created by jihadists to confuse the infidels because a phobia is an unreasonable fear. In the real world, Muslims are killing unbelievers every single day because the Koran says they should. Confusion is a powerful psychological weapon, often underestimated.

The CAIR message is that Americans are MEAN, they are RACIST, they are ISLAMOPHOBIC! We traditional citizens are supposed to respond to the nonstop propaganda by always giving diverse Muslims the benefit of the doubt.

That strategy clearly worked in San Bernardino, where neighbors were suspicious of nearby Muslims behaving strangely, but they did not report them to authorities because they didn’t want to be thought racist: as a result, Syed Farook and wife Tashfeek Malik were free to organize the December 2, 2015, attack that killed 14 and seriously wounded 22 fellow office workers where Farook was employed. The couple had a large arsenal of weapons in their home, including a dozen pipe bombs, which if police had seen, the jihad plot could have been broken up. So the Islamophobia propaganda won, and 14 Americans died as a result. Intimidation is an effective weapon, and hostile Muslims have been perfecting their world-conquest chops over 1,400 years.

CAIR encourages miffed Muslims who think they have been slighted by the infidels to phone the organization with a report. So imaginary affronts and outright lies are conflated by CAIR into a large scenario of a national lynch mob about to pounce upon poor innocent Muslims residing in the U.S. In January, the Powerline blog noted a kindergarten teacher supposedly hating on a tiny child: “CAIR promoted the fake hate crime in its patented style, alleging a two-month reign of terror against the boy.”

Perhaps some Muslims harbor an unconscious animus against Islam, since fake hate crimes against mosques by followers are not unknown. On Christmas morning (!) 2014, the Fresno Islamic Cultural Center was burgled, and alarm ensued: the police chief declared the incident an obvious hate crime and the FBI investigated. But the vandal, quickly identified from a surveillance photo, was Asif Mohammad Khan, a Muslim. The local Islo-community claimed the perp was suffering from mental illness (a common excuse), so the insanity defense was deemed acceptable and the city was relieved.

Another Christmas day mosque attack occurred in Houston in 2015 and was promoted by CAIR as a hate crime by Americans against Islam, citing what it called a “recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide.” But the arsonist turned out to be a Muslim man who had attended that mosque for five years. Oh well!

In fact, Muslim hate hoaxes have become so common that Breitbart reported last December, “ABC News Worries Hate Hoaxes ‘Discredit’ Muslims,” and CAIR mouthpiece Ibrahim Cooper was dispatched to the mainstream media to repair the damage. “These false reports unfortunately give ammunition to the industry of Islamophobes who promote the demonization and dehumanization of Islamic Muslims,” he observed, blaming Islamophobia for making peaceful Muslims commit felonies — wait, doesn’t that indicate a general mental weakness among the Allah acolytes? Perhaps the normal social stresses of immigration are just too tough for them.

A hate hoax was used by Muslim teenager Yasmin Sewei last December when she claimed she had been attacked on a Manhattan subway by drunk Trump supporters: she wrote on Facebook, “And it was just so dehumanizing I can’t speak about it without getting emotional.” Later the 18-year-old admitted the whole thing was a lie. Apparently she feared the reaction from her strict immigrant father because she had been out late drinking with friends and was dating a Christian boy. She appeared at her arraignment with a shaved head and without the piled-on makeup of her usual appearance. Actually, Yasmin is lucky she wasn’t honor-killed and probably would have been if the family were back in Egypt.

Sometimes the hate scam is used to disguise a deadly crime. On March 21, 2012, Muslim mother and American citizen Shaima Alawadi was beaten to death in her San Diego County home. The murder was initially characterized as an anti-Muslim hate crime, and the diversity-obsessed left worked itself into a frenzy over what it construed as a crime by anti-immigrant Americans.

The New York Times ran a lengthy story placing the blame on unwelcoming citizens in El Cajon, where many Muslims have been settled, titled, “Iraqi Immigrants in California Town Fear a Hate Crime in a Woman’s Killing.” It included a dramatic photo of the mourning husband, Kassim Alhimidi, clutching his wife’s body at her funeral. Local Iraqis feared some anti-Muslim killer was stalking the streets.

The case was publicized at length by lefty media like Salon, which published at least five articles about the supposed atrocity caused by murderous Islamophobia — for shame, bad Americans!

Responsible Islam critics Robert Spencer (JihadWatch.org) and Pamela Geller (PamelaGeller.com) got a severe thrashing online for supposedly causing the murder because they quote Koran verses promoting violence and report Islamic crimes against non-Muslims. Discussing Islam created an atmosphere of Islamophobia and murder, said the defenders of Muslim diversity.

The hate crime narrative had problems from the beginning, however. A note found at the crime scene conveniently provided a blame-Americans motivation: “This is my country. Go back to yours, terrorist.” A neighbor noticed that the broken glass was scattered outdoors from the house, peculiar if someone had broken in from outside. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center talker Mark Potok observed, “It is quite unusual to invade someone’s home, especially a woman, and violently beat her to death in the dining room.”

Finally on November 8, months after the murder, police arrested husband Kassim Alhimidi. He was tried and found guilty of murdering his wife, receiving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. Muslims residing in the United States had been driven into a state of near-hysteria because of the hate crime hoax, believing citizen lynch mobs were at hand. But the crime was of a Muslim husband killing his wife because she was planning a divorce. Robert Spencer wrote a blog summing up why the left media fail: “ Salon tries to save face: Shaima Alawadi murder not a hate crime, but hey, there’s a lot of Islamophobia anyway.”

It would be interesting to know how many crimes claimed to be based on tribal hate actually are fake. The prevalence of hate hoaxes puts the whole category into question. For example, are fake hate crimes included in the annual FBI statistics? Perhaps the new improved Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions could investigate. His Senate office produced excellent papers on the financial and social costs of illegal immigration, so an expansion of scholarship would be a reasonable expectation.

Various motivations propel fake hate behaviors, from the adolescent desire for attention to the political strategy of establishing a particular tribe as a victim class to gain more benefits from the system. When the Islamic organization CAIR wields hate hoaxes and fake Islamophobia like a weapon, it reveals itself as an enemy to America and western values generally. The Clausewitz observation that “War is politics by other means” suggests that the opposite is also true. So politicized hate hoaxes deserve our serious attention.

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Conquest by Other Means

By Martin Witkerk 
Volume 27, Number 3 (Spring 2017)
Issue theme: “A new era for immigration enforcement”

Veteran newspaperman Leo Hohmann has for several years been covering immigration and Islam for World Net Daily. In Stealth Invasion, his first book, he explains that the biggest mistake Christians and Jews make in regard to Islam is to assume it is “just another religion seeking a place in society on equal footing with the other great faiths.” Unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims have a religious duty to impose their faith upon the entire world through a combination of force and fraud.

Muslim authorities stress that the concept of jihad (literally “struggle”) does not refer only to fighting; it covers many kinds of apparently peaceful behavior intended to prepare for the eventual forcible conquest which always remains Islam’s ultimate goal. One of the most important non-violent components of jihad is hijra, or migration by Muslims to infidel lands. Muhammad himself set the example by migrating from Mecca to Medina in order to spread his message. The Koran advises Muslims that “Whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah (4:100).” Dying as a warrior engaged in violent jihad may be number one in the merit it gains a believer after death, but hijra comes in a close second. If a Muslim migrates to help spread his religion and dies away from his hometown, even comfortably in his bed, he is considered a martyr and guaranteed of going to heaven.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the prospective migrant also knows of the cradle to grave benefits in Europe and America. Such persons may see their income increase by a factor of ten—without even having to get a job.

Before America’s immigration floodgates were opened in 1965, there were about 150,000 Muslims in the entire country. Today, America has about 3.3 million Muslim citizens and permanent legal residents, with nearly a quarter of a million newcomers arriving every year. We cannot know for sure how many are coming for the easy life and how many to promote Islam, but many tell pollsters they would prefer to be back home. If they stay nevertheless, it could be because they are practicing hijra.

A second nonviolent component of jihad is da’wah, “summoning” or “inviting.” This can refer to Islamic proselytizing, but also includes the formation of alliances with non-Muslim groups that may prove useful for promoting Islam. As Hohmann explains, such overtures “are nothing but a clever ruse meant to weaken the resolve of the unbelievers.” But you do not have to take his word for it; documented proof has been found.

In 2004, FBI agents raided a safe house belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood in northern Virginia. Among the evidence they seized was a document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, written in 1991 by a Brotherhood operative named Mohamed Akram. This document described Muslim settlement of the United States as a “civilizational jihad process”:

The brothers must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands… so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Akram explains that “the heart and core of this strategy was contingent on these groups’ ability to develop a mastery of the art of coalitions.”

Such coalitions can even be formed with Christian churches. The Islamic Society of North America, one of 29 organizations unmasked by the Explanatory Memorandum as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, practices da’wah through its Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances. In January 2016, that organization’s national director, Dr. Sayyid M. Syeed, participated in a Catholic-Muslim interfaith conference at the University of San Diego. He spoke of:

…a new millennium of alliance-building for common values of mutual respect and recognition. All faiths are striving to promote those divine values enshrined in our sacred texts and scriptures, so that those who exploit them for reinforcing hate, extremism, violence and instability are identified as the enemies of all faiths.

Mr. Syeed clearly knows what an American audience wants to hear. Yet even as he dishes out this pabulum to naïve Americans, his own chief sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood, is busy supporting Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other violent jihadi organizations around the world!

This might not matter so much if influential Americans were not listening to him. But there on the stage beside him sat San Diego’s Catholic Bishop Robert W. McElroy. Instead of challenging Dr. Syeed on his terrorist connections, the good bishop rose to denounce the “scourge of anti-Islamic prejudice.” “We are witnessing a new nativism,” he told his listeners, “which the American Catholic community must reject and label for the religious bigotry that it is.”

Bishop McElroy is a member of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of nine voluntary agencies, or VOLAGs, working as government contractors to resettle Muslim “refugees” in America. Although five of the VOLAGs are affiliated with Christian churches, they are not engaged in missionary work; the law forbids them from proselytizing the new arrivals. Nor is such resettlement charitable work: the government pays VOLAGs $2,025 for every person they sponsor. Nor do most of these refugees even fit the 1951 Geneva Convention definition of “refugee” as a person displaced by a well-founded fear of persecution due to their religious, political, or ethnic affiliation. That is a strict standard; even many persons fleeing war zones do not qualify. The original intent of America’s refugee program was to provide safe haven for people fleeing communism.

But today all this has been forgotten. Ninety-five percent of those coming to the U.S. as “refugees” are hand-picked by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and America simply accepts whoever they send. According to the State Department, more than one million Muslims have been legally transplanted into over three hundred American cities and towns through this program. As Hohmann explains:

Those who enter as refugees immediately qualify for a full slate of government goodies that aren’t offered to most other immigrants. Everything from subsidized housing to food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, cash stipends and Medicaid are part of the prize. Within five years they can apply for citizenship and full voting rights.

Hohmann stresses the irony that perhaps no class of people in the world today fits the Geneva definition of refugees better than the persecuted Christian minorities in today’s Middle East. But it is their Muslim persecutors who are given the green light to come to America. For example, despite making up 10 percent of Syria’s population before the war, only 0.5 percent of the Syrians allowed into the U.S. as refugees have been Christian.

The Obama administration has done everything in its power to prevent any Christians from entering the U.S. as refugees over and above the tiny number chosen by the UN High Commissioner. In the spring of 2015, a group of 27 Iraqi Christians set out to cross the border and were detained and held for six months; five of them were charged criminally with falsifying their asylum applications and the rest were promptly deported. One lawyer who specialized in helping Iraqi Christians find refuge in the United States was charged by the Obama administration with “falsifying and embellishing” applications, and is now facing thirty-five years in prison. It is hard to believe that an attorney representing Muslim migrants would have been subject to similar scrutiny from the Obama administration.

Besides the VOLAGs and naïve men of God like Bishop McElroy, the most important targets of da’wah, or outreach to non-Muslim allies, are the globalist left with their vision of a borderless world controlled by unelected technocrats. For decades, this elite faction has been promoting birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and female careerism—in a word, sterility—across the West; at length, they have succeeded in creating a shortage of young people entering the workforce and paying taxes into the system. As the shortage becomes acute, these same people are coming forward to promote massive outsourcing of good-paying jobs to the third world and massive immigration of third world labor to the West as a “solution” to the problems they themselves have created.

Common sense would suggest that intelligent, educated persons of mainly European descent would make the most desirable candidates for immigration to the United States. But importing such people would do nothing to further the globalists’ goal of forcible equalization of material conditions around the world. It is precisely third-world Muslims’ alienness, poverty and lack of skills which makes them attractive to the globalists.

It is obvious, however, that the vision being pursued by the globalist left has nothing in common with the plans of radical Islamists themselves, and many have been puzzled by their willingness to embrace such allies. Hohmann’s diagnosis is certainly correct: globalists feel certain that Christianity and the inherited institutions of the West are the greatest obstacles in the way of fulfilling their plans; Islam, on the other hand, they see as “the perfect tool, a battering ram, for [the] brutal task… of tear[ing] down what is left of the old world order.”

Never was any political alliance more cynical than this one between Islam and globalism. Each party feels certain it will succeed in using the other for its own purposes, and God alone knows which of them is right. The only thing they agree on is the need to destroy the West thoroughly before turning upon one another. Patriots are stuck with the job of fighting both enemies at once, for no wedge can be driven between them until we are gone.

The most important globalist force working to maximize Muslim immigration to the U.S. in recent years has been the administration of Pres. Barack Obama. In November, 2014, as he announced his (unconstitutional) plan to grant amnesty by executive order to over five million illegal immigrants, Obama also created a “White House Task Force on New Americans.” In subsequent weeks, the cochair of this task force, Cecilia Mu ñoz (former executive of the National Council of La Raza) hosted three conference calls between White House officials and representatives of various open borders groups.

Baltimore talk-show host Susan Payne managed to infiltrate these conference calls, and reported what she heard to radio host Mark Levin. Participants were planning for 13-15 million legalizations rather than the five million announced to the public. They compared the placement of these immigrants to “planting seedlings” into the “soil” of receiving communities, which “soil” was to be adapted to accommodate the needs of the “seedlings”—and not the other way around. The newly amnestied immigrants were expected to “navigate, not assimilate;” one task force member spoke explicitly of “developing a country within a country.” Like seedlings, these new immigrant communities were meant to grow and gain strength until they could come out of the shadows and overtake the receiving communities: in effect, pushing older Americans into the shadows from which they had emerged. A key part of this plan is to grant all 13 million or more newly legalized aliens all the benefits hitherto reserved for refugees—courtesy of the same American taxpayers whom the newcomers are meant to replace.

Most immigrants to the U.S. are not Muslims, of course, but the Muslim proportion continues to rise. John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism specialist and the author of Raising a Jihadi Generation, estimates that the U.S. is ten to fifteen years behind Europe in terms of the advancement of Islam and the eventual subjugation of its non-Muslim population.

American public school children are already being taught a sugar-coated version of Islam that portrays Muhammad as a swashbuckling Robin Hood character. As one of Hohmann’s interviewees explains:

He’s this amazing guy whose message was spread around the world, and he wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor. Very few details are given of any of his conquests, the beheadings, the taking of female sex slaves, nothing.

The Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer remain strictly off-limits in America’s public schools, of course; separation of church and state applies only to Christianity.

A 2015 study commissioned by the Center for Security Policy found that 51 percent of American Muslims would prefer to live under sharia law rather than the U.S. Constitution; among Muslims under 30, the figure rises to 60 percent. Nearly a quarter of Muslims in America are willing to tell pollsters openly that they consider the use of violent jihad justified in order to establish sharia.

It is not even clear that Americans are allowed to disagree publicly with Islam any more. In the spring of 2016, the pastor of a small church in Oregon posted the following messages on his church’s marquee: “Wake up Christians; Allah is not our God; Muhammad not greater than Jesus; Only the Bible is God’s word… Koran is just another book.” The pastor estimates that on a good day, perhaps thirty cars would drive by and see this simple statement of Christian belief.

Within days, word had gotten out and liberal “Christian” groups descended on the church to protest. The largest newspaper in the state, the Portland The Oregonian, reported on the “controversy,” and even the Mayor of Portland intervened, describing the incident as “ugly” and “bigoted.” One night the church’s sign was vandalized, but the newspapers did not see fit to report this. As one observer pointed out, if Christians had defaced a mosque’s marquee it “would have been all over the news, and you probably would have had Obama out here with the Department of Justice filing hate-crime charges.”

Liberal “Christian” allies such as these reliably come to the aid of expanding Islam whenever called upon. And this is precisely the plan set forth by the Muslim Brotherhood in its “Explanatory Memorandum”: viz., “sabotaging [Western civilization’s] miserable house by their [own] hands.” As the author explains, “If you can find someone within your enemy’s own camp who is willing to be used and who will do your bidding, that’s always more effective than if you pleaded your own cause.”

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

U.S. Government Collaboration with Jihad

See No Sharia is an account of how, since the 9/11 attacks, the United States Government has gradually shifted its focus from protecting Americans from Islamic terrorism to protecting the civil rights and possible hurt feelings of Muslims. This shift was made possible by the success of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies in gaining access to and directly influencing the highest levels of our government.

Organized Muslim Brotherhood activity in the U.S. goes back to the establishment, in 1963, of the Muslim Students’ Association. Still active today, the MSA went on to organize the North American Islamic Trust (NAIC; founded 1973) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA; founded 1981). These organizations attracted little public attention before the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Less than two months after those attacks, the U.S. Treasury Department designated a Muslim charity called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) as a terrorist organization, charging it with having “provided millions of dollars of material and logistical support to another designated terrorist organization, Hamas.” In 2004, the HLF and five of its directors were indicted and charged in what became the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history. NAIC and ISNA were among the organizations named as co-conspirators in this trial.

The HLF trial was noteworthy for the explosive revelations made in the course of the prosecution. These included 1) a secret document written by a top Muslim Brotherhood operative laying bare the organization’s strategy for “destroying Western civilization from within”; and 2) details of a 1993 meeting of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood in Philadelphia, where participants discussed the possibility of supporting Hamas in its mission of creating an Islamic state throughout Palestine (including the present-day state of Israel) under the pretext of apolitical humanitarian activity.

On November 24, 2008, with Barack Obama already the president-elect, the Department of Justice obtained 108 guilty verdicts against all five defendants in the HLF trial. In a press release following the verdicts, Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan said: “This prosecution demonstrates our resolve to ensure that humanitarian relief efforts are not used as a mechanism to disguise and enable support for terrorist groups.” As the authors note, “such resolve would presumably have next put in the dock some—if not all—of the large number of individuals and organizations with proven ties to the Muslim Brotherhood who were identified in the HLF trial as unindicted co-conspirators.” Besides NAIC and ISNA, this included the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR; founded 1994).

No such prosecutions have ever occurred. On April 15, 2011, Rep. Peter King wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder with the following concerns:

I have been reliably informed that the decision not to seek indictments of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT, was usurped by high-ranking officials at the Department of Justice headquarters over the vehement and stated objections of special agents and supervisors of the FBI. Their opposition raises serious doubts that the decision not to prosecute was a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It raises the most serious questions for the Justice Department to decline to even attempt to prosecute individuals and organizations found by a federal judge to have a nexus with fundraising for an organization which conducts terror attacks upon civilians. I believe that in order to maintain the credibility of the Department, there should be full transparency into the Department’s decision. Please respond to this letter by April 25, 2011.

Rep. King never did get a response. Neither did the House Judiciary Committee when it filed a similar request in June of 2013. Attorney General Holder twice faced tough public questioning on the issue from Rep. Louis Gohmert, but was able to avoid giving a straight answer both times.

Muslim activists have also achieved notable success in getting Muslim blasphemy laws accepted in the non-Muslim world under the banner of fighting “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religion.” In 2007, the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers designated Islamophobia the “worst form of terrorism.” The following year, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) established an Islamophobia Observatory. More recently, the OIC has launched the so-called Istanbul Process “to build consensus on confronting Islamophobia,” a consensus intended to include “criminalizing denigration.” As the authors observe, OIC countries themselves already have laws against blasphemy, so the international consensus they aim to build can only refer to getting similar laws accepted in non-Muslim lands.

In 1998, Pakistan urged the United Nations to pass a “Defamation of Islam” resolution based on its own blasphemy laws. The resolution was passed once the wording was changed to embrace all religions. Between 1999 and 2010, several versions of the resolution were passed. In December, 2015, this movement reached American shores when Democratic Congressmen introduced House Resolution 569 condemning “violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” This resolution pointedly ignores the distinction between violent behavior against Muslims (already illegal) and “hateful” or “bigoted” talk, which can only be determined subjectively.

Moreover, Muslim groups routinely denounce all criticism of Islam as bigoted and hateful. Under Islamic law, any opposition to the advance of Islam—even purely verbal opposition—is fitnah, an illegal and provocative rebellion against God; the Koran specifically authorizes the use of violence wherever fitnah is encountered. In accepting the concept of “defamation of religion,” non-Muslim countries are in effect abdicating their own sovereignty to act as agents of Islam to suppress fitnah outside the Muslim world.

The OIC has cynically warned of the “dangerousness of this issue” with reference to the more than two hundred persons killed in the riots which followed the Danish cartoon controversy. In fact, according to the authors, the OIC itself had a hand in orchestrating those riots.

Even where governments have declined to criminalize “defamation of religion,” publishers and social media platforms have begun censoring critics of Islam in an effort to avoid trouble.

Already under President George W. Bush, the government began a program of “outreach” and “dialogue” with so-called Muslim community leaders on the grounds that they could help identify jihadists. From the beginning, some of these leaders have had terrorist connections. For example, a certain Nihad Awad, known to have been directly involved in financing Hamas, was invited to a meeting with the director of the FBI just five months after 9/11. Another participant in this meeting was arrested the following year and is currently serving a 17-year sentence on multiple terrorism-related charges.

Such outreach efforts were greatly strengthened under President Barack Obama, who once called it “part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” On his watch, Muslim Brotherhood representatives, including persons named as co-conspirators in the HLF trial, were allowed a role in shaping U.S. security policy. The practical effect of their influence has been to obscure and protect the activities of radical Muslims in our midst and to cripple America’s ability to defend itself against jihad.

During the Obama administration, the government dropped all references to the “War on Terror” in favor of a new label: “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE). The CVE strategy avoids any references to the role of Islamic doctrine, law and scripture in inspiring violent jihad against America. It also rationalizes the diversion of resources from confronting jihad to focusing on other groups said to be equally if not more dangerous, including “Constitutionalists,” veterans, Tea Party activists, opponents of legalized abortion, and gun owners.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups have formed with leftist organizations such as the ACLU and SPLC what the authors term a “Red-Green Axis” to pressure the government, partly through lawsuits, into suspending investigations and ending the surveillance of mosques with known and suspected terrorist ties—all in the name of protecting Muslims’ civil rights. They have also publicly lobbied the Department of Justice for cutbacks in anti-terror funding and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes “racial discrimination.” It is hard not to agree with the authors’ conclusion that “hostile foreign nationals and their enablers here [are using] our Civil Rights and Civil Liberties to try to destroy our country.”

Partly at the insistence of this Red-Green Axis, the Obama administration instituted a purge of government trainers, training materials, and other information deemed “offensive to Muslims” from the curricula of every major security-related agency in the U.S. government in 2011. The FBI, for example, dropped 876 pages and 392 presentations. Whether the allegedly offensive material was factually correct or not appears to have played no role in the decision to remove it. Muslim groups have even demanded the punishment of those responsible for such material.

Government agents are now taught that “no investigative or intelligence collection activity may be based solely on national origin or religious affiliation,” and that “religious expression and the espousing of political or ideological beliefs are constitutionally protected activities.” But as the authors note, two of the more obvious warning signs of Islamic terrorism are “adherence to Shariahand interest in the jihad it commands.” If attention to such signs is forbidden, there may be no way for agents to take action at the ideological stage of jihad, that is, before violent attacks occur. In a similar vein, rules now require government agents to establish probable cause before beginning any investigation into possible jihadist/terrorist activity — whereas historically the information needed to establish probable cause has often been obtained only through an initial investigative contact.

People have already died from such folly. Following the San Bernardino massacre, neighbors of the attackers told authorities they had long been concerned about the couple’s behavior, but had refrained from warning anybody for fear of being accused of “profiling.”

(SOURCE)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Islamic conquest of India. Bloodiest in the history of World

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment