Displaying posts published in

October 2016

POLITICS Comments turned off

Gropers and Rapists for Hillary Champions of abusing women. Daniel Greenfield

By on October 14th, 2016

“I am asking you to join me in supporting Bob Filner for Mayor,” the sleazy voice of Bill Clinton on the answering machine greeted San Diego residents. “As President, I worked with Bob.” During her first run for the White House, Hillary Clinton said that she looked forward to working with Filner.

Filner had impeccable credentials. His father was a Communist and he had been a Freedom Rider and a member of the Progressive Caucus. His ties to the Clintons went back a long way and he had passionately spoken out in defense of President Clinton during the impeachment debate.

He even had all the right left-wing “street” connections from J Street to Occupy Wall Street.

Planned Parenthood accused his Republican opponent of being part of the “War on Women” and claimed that, “For twenty years, Bob Filner has defended women… our right to choice, our right to healthcare, our right to equal pay.”

Bob Filner, like Bill Clinton, was also a serial sexual predator. His victims included a 67-year old grandmother and sexual assault victims who had come to him seeking help. He locked his executive assistant in the kitchen and demanded that they “make love.” His favorite move involved putting the women he targeted in a headlock.

Bill Clinton’s nickname was “Slick Willie.” Bob Filner’s was “Filthy Filner.” It wasn’t hard to see why Bill had backed Bob. Bill’s own idea of romance looked a lot like Bob’s. The stories told by Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, Bill’s accusers, bear a striking similarity to those of Bob’s accusers.

While Bill’s history of sexual assault is widely known, the Clintons have always been comfortable with sexual predators. Hillary Clinton described Senator Ted Kennedy, who had murdered one woman and assaulted many more, as a “champion for women.” One woman recalls being “championed” by Ted Kennedy as he threw her onto a table, breaking glass and crystal, before molesting her. The other member of that party, Senator Chris Dodd, recently endorsed Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s website boasts that she “collaborated closely with Senator Chris Dodd.” Probably not as closely as his victims.

Hillary’s champions for women are more likely to be champions of abusing women.

But Hillary has always been cold-blooded when it comes to her political allies abusing women. When Senator Bob Packwood, a pro-abortion Republican who won the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, got in trouble for groping women, Hillary complained about his accusers. “HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” a friend of Hillary’s wrote.

A few years ago, Joe Biden praised Packwood at the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum as the good kind of Republican. Considering Biden’s creepy history of touching women, that’s not surprising. But, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of Packwood’s left-wing allies, “The feminists tried to protect him at first… even though he had the hilarious gall to jump on an abortion lobbyist.”

Just as they had tried to protect Bill Clinton, Bob Filner, Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and so many others. Joe Biden’s own creepy habits have been fondly joked about in the media. Just Joe being Joe.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Unprecedented: Hungary Opens Office for Persecuted Christians Its “right wing” government appears to know something about Muslims and Christians that the West doesn’t. Raymond Ibrahim

By on October 14th, 2016

The nation of Hungary recently did something that is as unprecedented as it is commonsensical and humanitarian: it “has become the first government to open an office specifically to address the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Europe.”

Zoltan Balog, Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources, explained:

Today, Christianity has become the most persecuted religion, where out of five people killed [for] religious reasons, four of them are Christians. In 81 countries around the world, Christians are persecuted, and 200 million Christians live in areas where they are discriminated against. Millions of Christian lives are threatened by followers of radical religious ideologies.

“Followers of radical religious ideologies” is of course code for Muslims—they who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of Christian persecution in the world.

This move comes “after Hungary’s right-wing prime minister, Victor Orban, drew criticism in the EU by saying Europe should focus on helping Christians before helping millions of Muslims coming into Europe.”

Orban explained: “If we really want to help, we should help where the real problem is.… We should first help the Christian people before Islamic people.”

But do Western governments “really want to help” those suffering true persecution? For if they did, not only would taking in “Christian people before Islamic people” be the most humane thing to do; it would also benefit Western nations as well.

Consider some facts:

Unlike Muslims, Christian minorities are being singled out and persecuted simply because of their despised religious identity. From a humanitarian point of view, then—and humanitarianism is the reason being cited for accepting millions of refugees—Christian refugees should receive greater priority over Muslim migrants. Even before the Islamic State was formed, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims—Muslim individuals, Muslim mobs, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian)—and for the same reason: they are infidel number one. (See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians.)

Continue reading →
EDUCATION, ISRAEL Comments turned off

San Francisco State: A Haven For Supporters of Terrorists The campus is notorious for its glorification of anti-Israel terrorism.

By on October 14th, 2016

Last night, the David Horowitz Freedom Center brought its Stop the Jew Hatred on Campus poster campaign to San Francisco State University, a campus that is notorious for its glorification of anti-Israel terrorism and anti-Semitism.

San Francisco State University (SFSU) has repeatedly enabled the most extreme actions of its General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), a group closely resembling Students for Justice in Palestine, once led by SJP founder Hatem Bazian. This past April, GUPS disrupted a speech by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barkat, by shouting exhortations to terrorist violence and succeeded in curtailing his address. The demonstrators shouted “Intifada,” a call for terrorism against Israel, and chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!” a call for the obliteration of the Jewish state. The former president of GUPS wrote dozens of social media posts threatening violence to pro-Israel students, Israelis, the IDF and others. He also praised Hamas and the violent Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

GUPS holds annual Israeli Apartheid Weeks which demonize Israel as an apartheid state and commemorate the founding of Israel as “al-Nakba” or “the catastrophe.” The faculty advisor for GUPS, Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi, met with terrorists Leila Khaled and Sheikh Raed Salah during a university-funded trip to the Middle East. (Khaled is a convicted hijacker and a member of the terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Sheikh Raed Salah has been repeatedly jailed on charges of incitement to terrorist violence.) When questioned about the trip, San Francisco State administrators denied that Abdulhadi’s trip was an improper use of university funds. Abdulhadi also helped to broker a formal collaboration between SFSU and An-Najah National University in Palestine, which is known for its recruitment of students as cadre for Hamas and as suicide bombers.

The Freedom Center’s poster operation plastered the campus with posters identifying the organization Students for Justice in Palestine as a campus front for Hamas terrorists and the Hamas intermediary American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). AMP was revealed in recent congressional testimony to be funneling terrorist dollars to Students for Justice in Palestine to support the Hamas-sponsored, anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in America.

One of the posters depicts SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, the faculty advisor for the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS), an SJP clone. Text on the poster describes Abdulhadi as “A leader of the Hamas BDS Campaign” and a “Collaborator with Terrorists.”

Continue reading →
FOREIGN POLICY, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

From Yemen to Turtle Bay How Iran is driving the U.S. out of the Middle East. Caroline Glick

By on October 14th, 2016

Iran’s game is clear enough. It wishes to replace the US as the regional hegemon, at the US’s expense.

Since Obama entered office nearly eight years ago, Iran’s record in advancing its aims has been one of uninterrupted success.

Iran used the US withdrawal from Iraq as a means to exert its full control over the Iraqi government. It has used Obama’s strategic vertigo in Syria as a means to exert full control over the Assad regime and undertake the demographic transformation of Syria from a Sunni majority state to a Shi’ite plurality state.

In both cases, rather than oppose Iran’s power grabs, the Obama administration has welcomed them. As far as Obama is concerned, Iran is a partner, not an adversary.

Since like the US, Iran opposes al-Qaida and ISIS, Obama argues that the US has nothing to fear from the fact that Iranian-controlled Shiite militias are running the US-trained Iraqi military.

So, too, he has made clear that the US is content to stand by as the mullahs become the face of Syria.

In Yemen, the US position has been more ambivalent. In late 2014, Houthi rebel forces took over the capital city of Sanaa. In March 2015, the Saudis led a Sunni campaign to overthrow the Houthi government. In a bid to secure Saudi support for the nuclear agreement it was negotiating with the Iranians, the Obama administration agreed to support the Saudi campaign. To this end, the US military has provided intelligence, command and control guidance, and armaments to the Saudis.

Iran’s decision to openly assault US targets then amounts to a gamble on Tehran’s part that in the twilight of the Obama administration, the time is ripe to move in for the kill in Yemen. The Iranians are betting that at this point, with just three months to go in the White House, Obama will abandon the Saudis, and so transfer control over Arab oil to Iran.

For with the Strait of Hormuz on the one hand, and the Bab al-Mandab on the other, Iran will exercise effective control over all maritime oil flows from the Arab world.

It’s not a bad bet for the Iranians, given Obama’s consistent strategy in the Middle East.

Obama has never discussed that strategy.

Indeed, he has deliberately concealed it. But to understand the game he has been playing all along, the only thing you need to do listen to his foreign policy soul mate.

According to a New York Times profile published in May, Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes is the president’s alter ego. The two men’s minds have “melded.”

Rhodes’s first foreign policy position came in the course of his work for former congressman Lee Hamilton.

In 2006, then-president George W. Bush appointed former secretary of state James Baker and Hamilton to lead the Iraq Study Group. Bush tasked the group with offering a new strategy for winning the war in Iraq. The group released its report in late 2006.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

The Clinton Record A devastating exposé of the most unfit and undeserving individual ever to seek the American presidency. John Perazzo

By on October 14th, 2016

“In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton is a woman with a mindset that is totalitarian in every respect. To make matters worse, she is a lying, deceiving, manipulative, self-absorbed criminal without a shred of personal virtue. Truly it can be said that never before in American history has anyone so unfit and so undeserving, run for president. Never.”

Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.

Clinton’s Private Email Server & the Espionage Act

Throughout her entire four-year tenure as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton never acquired or used a government email account. Instead, she transmitted — in violation of government regulations — all of her official correspondences via a private email address that traced back to a secret, private, unsecured server that was housed at her New York residence.1 And immediately after those emails were subpoenaed by Congress, Clinton instructed a team of her advisers to unilaterally delete, with no oversight, almost 32,000 of the roughly 60,000 emails in question.2

Clinton claimed that her reason for having used only a personal email account, rather than both a personal and a government account, was that she found it “easier,” “better,” “simpler” and more convenient to “carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”3 It was eventually learned, however, that Mrs. Clinton in fact had used no fewer than 13 mobile devices to access emails on her private server, but the FBI was unable to obtain any of those devices in its investigation, in some cases because Clinton aides had been instructed to smash them with a hammer.4

Clinton originally assured Americans that not even one piece of classified material had ever been transmitted via her unsecured, secret, personal server. But now it is known that at least 2,079 emails that she sent or received via that server, contained classified material.5 As the eminent broadcaster and legal scholar Mark Levin has made plain, each of those 2,079 offenses constituted a felonious violation of Section 793 of the Espionage Act.6 And each violation was punishable by a prison sentence of up to ten years.7

In January 2016, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “the odds are pretty high” that Russia, China, and Iran had compromised Clinton’s unsecured email server.8

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton, unlike Donald Trump, never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she of course respects women deeply. In fact, she respects all people, including the 315 million Americans whose personal and national security was compromised when Mrs. Clinton willfully allowed top-secret information to wind up in the possession of our country’s most hostile enemies around the world.

The Clinton Foundation Scandals

In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”9

As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10 Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon;11 the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12 the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13 a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14 and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15

Even during Clinton’s tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.

Bill Clinton earned a total of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees during his wife’s term as secretary.16

In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton’s 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with Mrs. Clinton.17

In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.18

But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for needy people around the world, doesn’t it? Well, according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and “other expenses.”19 In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.

Clinton’s Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal

Continue reading →
ISRAEL Comments turned off

UN World Heritage Body Rules Temple Mount Isn’t Jewish By Bridget Johnson

By on October 14th, 2016

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a UN body as the “theater of the absurd” after Thursday’s resolution that stated there was no Jewish heritage connection to the Temple Mount.

Instead, the Palestinian-drafted UNESCO resolution only referred to the site as Al-Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram Al-Sharif and declared that it belonged to Muslims while referring to Israeli sites as “so-called.”

The draft was submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan and advocates “safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Palestine and the distinctive character of East Jerusalem” and “deeply deplores the failure of Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the persistent excavations and works in East Jerusalem particularly in and around the Old City, and reiterates its request to Israel, the occupying Power, to prohibit all such works in conformity with its obligations under the provisions of the relevant UNESCO conventions, resolutions and decisions.”

At a meeting of the Bible Study Circle at his Jerusalem residence today, Netanyahu said UNESCO “adopted another delusional decision stating that the Jewish People have no connection to the Temple Mount or the Western Wall.”

“Even if they do not read the Bible, I would suggest that UNESCO members visit the Arch of Titus in Rome. On it one can see what the Romans brought back to Rome after they destroyed and looted the Second Temple on the Temple Mount 2,000 years ago,” he said. “There, engraved on the Arch of Titus, is the seven-branched menorah that is the symbol of the Jewish People and, I remind you, is also the symbol of the Jewish state today. Soon, UNESCO will say that the Emperor Titus engaged in Zionist propaganda.”

“To say that Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or that Egypt has no connection to the pyramids. By this absurd decision, UNESCO has lost what little legitimacy it had left. But I believe that historical truth is stronger and that truth will prevail. And today we are dealing with the truth.”

Countries voting in favor of the resolution were Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam.

Voting against the resolution were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia.

Among the 24 abstentions were France and Italy. Serbia and Turkmenistan were no-shows for the vote.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. “strongly opposed these resolutions” and “issued a very strong statement, an explanation of vote, along with our vote, and as we made clear, we are deeply concerned about these kinds of recurring, politicized resolutions that do nothing to advance constructive results on the ground. And we don’t believe they should be adopted.”

Asked if the administration plans on doing anything to stop such resolutions in the future, Toner vowed that “we’re going to use our vote.”

“We’re still a member of the – or on the board, the executive board” of UNESCO, he added. “We have opposed and will continue to oppose and use our vote as part of that executive board to oppose these resolutions.”

Toner acknowledged that the resolution passed, “but it’s still important to have a U.S. voice in that process.”

He noted that anti-Israel resolutions “have been a recurring challenge at UNESCO in recent years, and we’ve obviously strongly opposed all of them at the executive board.”

“And as I said, we won’t hesitate in the future to use our veto power – or not our veto power, our vote, rather – at these board meetings to oppose these resolutions; that, in and of itself, it’s important, as I said, to have a voice in that discussion that basically calls these resolutions for what they are,” Toner said.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee called the resolution “an affront to the truth and a crude attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state” and “demonstrative of Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct negotiations by manipulating international institutions.”

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION, POLITICS Comments turned off

Free the FBI 100! By Roger L Simon

By on October 14th, 2016

For those concerned above all with what’s left of the rule of law in our republic, the most important dispatch of this nauseating campaign season has been Fox News’ “FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider.”

Many of you may have read the first few paragraphs of this article before, but they’re worth reading again for purposes of discussion:

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

The article continues:

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

So one anonymous insider said it was unanimous that Hillary should be prosecuted and a “high-ranking official” said the “vast majority” felt that way. Whichever is accurate, there were more than a hundred agents and analysts working with six lawyers on the case, but let’s round that off to an even 100.

What’re we to do about all those agents, analysts and lawyers who are not allowed to speak their minds and tell the American public they serve what they think about what happened?

It’s not the Chicago 7 who need to be freed this time. The situation has flipped. It’s the forces of law and order — the FBI 100.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

What’s Putin’s big worry? By James Lewis

By on October 14th, 2016

Vladimir Putin is putting up spectacular aggressive displays these days, making near-miss air attacks on our recon planes, expanding his military bases in Syria and Iran, and probably helping the Yemeni Houthis launch cruise missiles perilously close to our naval vessels in the Straits of Hormuz.

Putin is strategic in his thinking, and a lot of his anti-American posing is phony, simply because the West poses no genuine threat to Mother Russia. Certainly not compared to jihad.

The question is, therefore, why Putin is stirring up the biggest post-Soviet fuss ever. What does he stand to gain from Western scare headlines?

Russia is not interested in nuclear confrontations, where everybody loses and nobody wins. Instead, he is putting on his war dance to gain Obama concessions that most Americans may never see, like tactical retreats by U.S. forces in the Gulf, oil price concessions from the Saudis, and a free hand against Chechen ISIS terrorists who would love to go back to kill Russian infidels in Moscow.

Because Obama is the weakest U.S. president in history, Putin may see the coming months as the best time to squeeze out the last American concessions. He may also calculate that Hillary wants to stop the email leaks so badly that she might promise concessions if she is elected.

Obama can no longer hide his secret support of Muslim jihad in Syria, in Libya, and here at home, while Hillary’s closest aide is Huma Abedin, who received lifelong indoctrination in an activist Muslim Brotherhood family.

Like it or not, Huma fits the profile of an M.B. agent to perfection. The Moobers could wish for nothing better than high-level loyalists at the top of the U.S. government. That is why many millions of M.B. dollars are flowing through the Clinton Foundation into Democratic (and maybe Republican) pockets.

Jihadist infiltration is a humongous political scandal, and only Donald Trump seems to be willing to talk about it.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

A Guest Post: Islamization Planned : Machteld Zee

By on October 14th, 2016

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated Sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

This post will feature Zee’s discoveries and conclusions about how Islamization is carried out in Sharia courts, without anyone else hearing anything about it.

Sharia law is the Islamic legal system, derived from the Koran and the rulings of Islamic scholars, known as fatwas. As well as providing a code for living – including prayers, fasting and donations to the poor – Sharia also lays down punishments as extreme as cutting off a hand or death by stoning for adultery. Critics of Sharia law – such as Ms Zee, after conducting her research – say it downgrades women and is incompatible with European human rights legislation. Men need only say the word to have a religious divorce (uttering “I divorce you” three times), but women need the sanction of clerics. Without it, they risk being called adulterers if they do remarry. T

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating Sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied Sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace Sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on Sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — Sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a Sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before Sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The Sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards Sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favor of Sharia courts anymore.’

Continue reading →
IMMIGRATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Refugees À-Go-Go :Edward Cline

By on October 14th, 2016

Barack Obama has not said it so openly. He relies on his allies in malice to enunciate it. If there is any “negative” reaction to such racism, then it would redound on his proxies, not on him. But, Hillary agrees and wants to continue his policy. America’s “white” population electorate must not only be disenfranchised or rendered null with a massive influx of Muslim “refugees,” and also with South American illegals, all of whom will suddenly and magically be endowed with the vote, but, if

possible, be “replaced” with the preferred races and rendered a powerless, unrepresented “minority.”

This was Ted Kennedy’s fondest legislative dream. In 1995, the Center for Immigration Studies opined on the consequences of the The Hart-Celler Act of 1965:

The unexpected result has been one of the greatest waves of immigration in the nation’s history — more than 18 million legal immigrants since the law’s passage, over triple the number admitted during the previous 30 years, as well as uncountable millions of illegal immigrants. And the new immigrants are more likely to stay (rather than return home after a time) than those who came around the turn of the century. Moreover, this new, enlarged immigration flow came from countries in Asia and Latin America which heretofore had sent few of their sons and daughters to the United States. And finally, although the average level of education of immigrants has increased somewhat over the past 30 years, the negative gap between their education and that of native-born Americans has increased significantly, creating a mismatch between newcomers and the needs of a modern, high-tech economy…..

The liberalization of immigration policy reflected in the 1965 legislation can be understood as part of the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end legal discrimination based on race and ethnicity — essentially, the immigration bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and a symbolic one at that, expected to bring few changes in its wake. [Bolding the report’s]

And, there were a number of noteworthy foot-in-mouth predictions, this one by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), a sponsor of the bill:

“With the end of discrimination due to place of birth, there will be shifts in countries other than those of northern and western Europe. Immigrants from Asia and Africa will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down. There will not be, comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country. .. .Since the people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate [sic] from those countries because they have no family ties in the U.S.” (Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21812.)

Ted Kennedy then assures everyone that there won’t be deleterious consequences of the new immigration bill. But, being a Kennedy, he could not help but lie:

Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Sen. Kennedy concluded by saying,

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

In 1965, there was no ISIS, Muslims were all but invisible, and so were Mexican and South American illegals, and Syria and Iraq may as well have been on the moon. But, knowing how little Kennedy valued any truth, one cannot but imagine that he was hoping for the worst: he, too, wanted to destroy America. He got what he wished for, in the person and policies of Barack Obama.

Continue reading →