Thursday, March 31, 2016

Little Britain: The only gay in the village

Feminist Society Invites Jihadists Who Support Stoning Women

by Daniel Greenfield 

Leftists and feminists support women. They're very deeply concerned about sexism. This is how much.
Moazzam Begg, outreach director for CAGE, spoke at the University of Exeter as part a National Union of Students campaign to sabotage government counter-terrorism measures.
It is just the latest in a long line of appearances on campuses by the group, which recently provoked horror after calling the Islamic State killer a 'beautiful young man'.
Mr Begg, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, spoke last Wednesday at the ‘Students Not Suspects’ event, organised by the university Socialist, Feminist and Islamic Societies in partnership with Friends of Palestine.
How feminist is CAGE?
One student questioned Mr Begg over an interview he gave to Julian Assange alongside CAGE research director Asim Qureshi.
In the interview, Mr Qureshi stated that, if all conditions were met, a women could be stoned to death for adultery.
Begg refused to reject stoning women to death and instead ranted about Gitmo. And how evil arresting terrorists is.
This is the same NUS, sections of which have condemned gay men for their privilege and tried to ban clapping because it's too "triggering". But stoning women to death is not triggering. At all.

Anti-Mass Migration Party Leader: Germany Wrapping Itself In ‘Cloak of Guilt… It’s Time For Healthy Patriotism’

by Oliver JJ Lane 

Leader of the Eurosceptic, anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has said her fellow Germans should not be afraid to be patriotic for a country which is under threat from mass migration. Party leader Frauke Petry made the remarks in an apparently fraught interview with German magazine Spiegel, quoting Oxford academic and British government advisor Sir Paul Collier. Responding to the question “what do you have against immigration?”, Dr. Petry cited Sir Paul’s book Exodus, and said: “One thing is clear: The immigration of so many Muslims will change our culture”.
Exodus, subtitled ‘How Migration Changed Our World’ is the academic’s 2013 study on mass migration and highlighted how migration can damage both host an home nations. Looking to cities like London where “indigenous” Britons are now in a minority, Collier found increasing migration discouraged integration.
Sir Paul has also gone on record saying migration weakens social cohesion, and that migrants bring their “dysfunctional cultures to developed countries” and suggested it would be good if many returned home, as reported by Breitbart London.
Speaking on this change that migrants bring in her interview, Dr. Petry said there had to be a mandate for such a significant shift in national life. She said: “If this change is desired, it must be the product of a democratic decision supported by a broad majority. But Ms. Merkel simply opened the borders and invited everybody in, without consulting the parliament or the people”.
Although Dr. Petry clearly has significant doubts about German politicians, she is more enthusiastic about Germany itself, and used some of the interview to express her views on national pride. While lamenting that “nationalism and patriotism are regularly thrown in the same pot”, she said it was time for Germany to stop using the past and collective guilt as an excuse, and to embrace “healthy patriotism”.
Remarking that feeling love for your own nation should be “natural”, Dr. Petry said: “This stance includes taking responsibility for our history, but it also presupposes a healthy relationship to our identity, without which it’s impossible to act in a forward-looking manner both domestically and externally. We think it’s wrong that German politicians are exclusively wrapping themselves in the cloak of guilt”.
This position stands in line with her scepticism over the direction of travel towards a European super-state. Saying her patriotism was a natural response to the centralisation in brussels, Dr. Petry also batted aside the suggestion her party could be considered purely “far right”. Remarking on her criticism of banks and the Euro, she said the party was closer to the German Far Left party, rather than right-wing conservatives.
The interview also touched on Dr. Petry’s remarks in January on defending Germany’s borders. The subject has been a favourite for the German main-stream media, as Dr. Petry’s remark that the German constitution and national laws provided for armed border guards was quickly turned into a call for police to fire on unarmed migrant children.
While the Spiegel interviewer accused Petry of trivialising violence, she said the outrage over her remarks had been concocted from “faux scandal” and that “people wanted to wilfully misunderstand” her remarks.
A recent interview with Dr. Petry by German English-language broadcaster Deutsche Welle went viral as the interviewer Tim Sebastian repeatedly attempted to wrong-foot the AfD leader. Her remarks on German border guards were again a central part of the interview but much comment, especially among supporters of Dr. Petry surrounding the piece focussed on Mr. Sebastian’s confrontational style and constant interrupting of her answers.

FBI Director Just Dropped a Bomb on Hillary – This Spells DOOM For Her Campaign!

The news just keeps getting worse and worse for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In early March, Brian Pagliano, the IT specialist who set up a private email server in her bathroom, was granted immunity and began singing like a bird on his higher-ups. He has allegedly become a “devastating witness,” one that Judge Andrew Napolitano said Clinton “should be terrified of.”
Then, just days ago, a report indicated that the FBI had roughly 147 agents working to determine if Hillary engaged in any criminal misconduct which put America’s national security at risk.
Now, it looks like her day of reckoning may arrive within weeks as a new report indicates that Clinton will be interviewed any day now by FBI Director James Comey.
Getcha popcorn ready!
David Shuster of AJAM reports (H/T Mediaite):
While Hillary Clinton fights for the Democratic presidential nomination, law enforcement officials tell Al Jazeera America the Federal Investigation into her personal email system while she was Secretary of State has reached a critical stage.
The FBI, led by Director James Comey, has now finished examining Clinton’s private emails and home server. And the sources add that Comey’s FBI team has been joined by the Justice Department prosecutors. Together, they are now examining the evidence, analyzing relevant laws, and attempting to arrange interviews with key figures in the investigation.
Those interviews, according to attorneys, will include former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself.
Soon after those interviews — in the next few days and weeks — officials expect Director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges.
Shuster also reports that the Clinton interview “could come in days,” something he defines as a crucial turning point in determining whether or not she is indicted.
From there, “Sources expect the conclusion to come in weeks, not months,” Shuster reported.

10,000 millionaires leave France in one year due to 'religious tensions'

By Rick Moran  

Back in 2012, French President Hollande made good on a campaign promise and imposed a 75% tax on millionaires. There were some high profile rich Frenchmen who exited the country, including  Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, who applied for Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship.
Predictably the tax took in far less than advertised before it was dropped. But there was no mass exodus of rich people from the country. You don't get to be rich by paying taxes; you get rich by shielding your money from the tax man. 
But exiting because of terrorism is another matter. And last year, 10,000 rich people left France for greener pastures - an astonishing 3% of all the millionaires in the country.
The report was compiled by New World Wealth, an agency that gives information on the global wealth sector. The report was based on data collected from investor visa programme statistics of each country; annual interviews with around 800 global high net worth individuals and with intermediaries like migration experts, second citizenship platforms, wealth managers and property agents; data from property registers and property sales statistics in each country; and by tracking millionaire movements in the media.
According to the report, Millionaire migration in 2015, France topped the list of countries with maximum millionaire outflows as it lost 10,000 millionaires, or 3% of its millionaire population. Among the cities that saw maximum millionaire outflow, Paris, was at the top – losing about 6% of its millionaire population or 7,000 millionaires in 2015 to the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and Israel.
"The large outflow of millionaires from France is notable – France is being heavily impacted by risingreligious tensions between Christians and Muslims, especially in urban areas. We expect thatmillionaire migration away from France will accelerate over the next decade as these tensions escalate," the report warns.
After France, the list of countries ranked by millionaire outflows includes China ranked second, followed by Italy, India, Greece, the Russian Federation, Spain and Brazil in descending order.
As for inflows, Australia was the favourite destination with maximum inflows in 2015 – a total of 8,000 new millionaires. The US was ranked second with 7,000 inflows, followed by Canada, Israel, the UAE and New Zealand.
Australian cities Sydney, Melbourne and Perth saw a significant millionaire inflow in 2015 from China, Europe, the UK, the US and South Africa, with Sydney topping the chart with 4,000 new millionaires or 4% added to its existing millionaire population, according to the report. Melbourne and Perth had 3,000 and 1,000 new millionaires in 2015, respectively. Tel Aviv, Dubai, San Francisco, Vancouver and Seattle also featured among the top eight cities with millionaire inflows.
People generally vote with their feet so the rich leaving France is a strong "no" vote for the way that the French government is handling their "Muslim question." Recently, Hollande dropped the notion of taking away French citizenship for terrorists. What sort of signal does that send to terrorists?
More importanly, what kind of signal does that send to the French people who, in growing numbers, don't want to live in a place where political correctness overrides the security of the people.

UK police arrest man for "racist" tweet after Brussels terror attacks

Major German Newspaper: 1960s Anti-Immigration Firebrand Enoch Powell Was Right

by Oliver JJ Lane 

German establishment newspaper Die Welt (The World) has published a sympathetic article about former British Conservative politician Enoch Powell – a hero of anti mass migration campaigners often vilified by the political left – in a reflection on the migration crisis. In British political discourse, reference to the late Wolverhampton Member of Parliament is most often an invitation for a firestorm of criticism from the same sort of pro mass-migration activists who contributed to the downfall of Mr. Powell himself. Yet the same does not appear to hold true in Germany were a thoughtful editorial on the prescience of Mr. Powell’s comments on mass migration has elicited little excitement.
Reporting the classical source of his now infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech — the Roman poet Virgil — the column by German historian Michael Stürmer said no one in British politics had been “punished” so “mercilessly” as Powell for stepping out of line.
Entitled ‘Powell’s Early Warning on Mass Migration’, the piece opens by quoting the book of Ecclesiastes from the Bible, that “Everything on earth has its own time and its own season”, appealing to the idea that Powell himself was ahead of his own time, and crucified politically for it.
Remarking that Powell’s message was not just “against the political correctness of the 1960s”, it also offended the interests of British industry which wanted to import cheap labour. Pursuing that goal, the editorial contends, Britain like Germany did not at the time give attention to “the idea of long-term consequences” and so suffers today.
This opportunism was something Mr. Powell was alive to and rather than go quietly to the House of Lords following his dismissal from the shadow cabinet he preferred instead to fall on his sword to show up the folly of official policy on mass migration. The article reports this was a position with which he knew through opinion polls many Britons shared.
4th June 1975:  British politicians Barbara Castle (left), Enoch Powell (second left) and Michael Foot (far right) at a conference in the Waldorf Hotel, London, to campaign against British entry into the common market.  (Photo by Peter Cade/Central Press/Getty Images)
4th June 1975: British politicians Barbara Castle (left), Enoch Powell (second left) and Michael Foot
 (far right) at a conference in the Waldorf Hotel, London, to campaign against British entry into the common market. 
(Photo by Peter Cade/Central Press/Getty Images)
Closing, the article contends Mr. Powell would have experienced no pleasure at seeing his predictions fulfilled — a dose of schadenfreude. Yet it states he had the ability to see the future of mass migration “earlier and more clearly with others”.
Enoch Powell was dismissed from the shadow cabinet in 1968 after a political speech deemed at the time beyond acceptable. Speaking to a party audience in Birmingham, Mr. Powell said the country was undergoing a transformation forced by mass migration for which “there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history”.
He said:”We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.
circa 1972: An anti-Asian demonstration in favour of Enoch Powell.   (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)
circa 1972: A demonstration in favour of Enoch Powell. (Photo by Evening Standard/Getty Images)
“So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen”.
Quoting a line from Virgil’s Aenid, Mr. Powell said the words which would allow the mainstream media to close down the immigration debate for decades to come: “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.
In comparison to the figure of 50,000 Mr. Powell quoted, in 2015 617,000 people emigrated to the United Kingdom. In Germany, the figure approached two million.

Arrest George Soros: Use existing criminal and civil laws to shut down his anti-American juggernaut.

by Matthew Vadum 

 It is time to hold radical ringleader George Soros to account for the growing civil unrest that he has helped to foment in this presidential election cycle and his efforts to shut down Donald Trump rallies using physical force and intimidation.
Soros, the billionaire speculator, is the preeminent funder of the activist Left in America, which means he is the Number One funder of the domestic terrorism that is part and parcel of the Left.
Soros makes no secret of his contempt for leading GOP candidate Trump. In January he said "Donald Trump is doing the work of ISIS." Ideas like banning entry to the U.S. by Muslims might "convince the Muslim community that there is no alternative but terrorism."
Soros favors the decline of the U.S. and spends lavishly on activism to bring that collapse about. He has spent an estimated $7 billion or more on giving left-wing groups the resources to screw up the country.
He has used his vast fortune to topple governments in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. He "broke" the British pound, was accused of wreaking havoc on the Malaysian ringgit, and was called an "economic war criminal" in Thailand. A French court convicted him of insider trading.
America is his current target.
Soros calls America "the main obstacle to a stable and just world order" and hails Communist China for having "a better-functioning government than the United States." He says European-style socialism "is exactly what we need" and funds open-borders groups in order to corrode the nation's culture and change its electorate.
And he's at the forefront of the Left's push to defeat Trump by any means possible -- lawful or otherwise.
What do the violent mobs assaulting Donald Trump fans and supporting the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street movements have in common? Money from Soros and the huge philanthropies he has endowed to turn America into a socialist country. Black Lives Matter and Soros-funded MoveOn have been heavily involved in hardball tactical strikes against Trump and his supporters.
The morally flexible Soros works the American system from the inside and the outside, using both lawful and unlawful, illegitimate tactics.
Some of the anti-Trump activism he funds consists of conventional political activities.
Soros recently contributed $5 million to a new super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win. The PAC's FEC filings indicate it is run out of the Washington, D.C. office of a Soros-funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit called Center for Community Change Action (formerly called Campaign for Community Action). ACORN alumnus Deepak Bhargava is the nonprofit's executive director and Sixties radical Heather Booth is a member of its board. It is expected to conduct a $15 million voter-mobilization effort against Trump in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada.
But when Soros funds activist groups involved in illegitimate efforts to deny Americans their right to participate in the political process he crosses a line.
There is no right to riot or to silence one's political adversaries.
"Although the right to peacefully protest is enshrined in the Construction," law professor John F. Banzhaf III writes, "there is no constitutional or other legal right to commit criminal acts to make a point."
And as legal analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote after unruly Bernie Sanders supporters and other left-wing activists forced the cancelation of the Trump rally March 11 at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the law imposes on police "an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect the speaker’s right to speak, the audience’s right to hear and the protesters’ right to protest." Put another way, "protest of political speech is itself protected speech, but protest cannot be so forceful or dominant that it vetoes the speaker."
Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. added that "The First Amendment does not confer upon you or me or [Fox host] Steve Doocy the right to go to someone's rally and try to disrupt it, or destroy it, or to pull apart posters, or to start fights, or to attempt to commit an assault on a presidential candidate."
Johnson's comments came after admitted Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter supporter Tommy DiMassimo dramatically rushed the stage March 12 in Ohio when Trump was speaking. The college student, who was grabbed by security before he got to Trump, said he intended to silence the Republican candidate he accuses of having what he called "violent white supremacist ideas." He had previously bragged on Twitter that he planned to "spit on their false king [i.e. Trump.]"
What these so-called protesters do when they try to bring about a desired political result by frightening people amounts to terrorism. Terrorism isn't always about blowing up buildings or killing people. It can also consist of activity intended to frighten, demoralize,  or neutralize an enemy—in other words, a variety of psychological warfare.
"Terror means make it impossible to go to the public square. Make people afraid to go to Times Square. Make them afraid to go to train stations. Make them afraid to travel. Make them afraid to go to a Donald Trump rally. Make them afraid to go to any political rally. Make them afraid they might be hurt, they might be arrested, they might be intimidated, they might get sued ... "
The outrageous behavior by left-wing activists that is now routinely tolerated by police today would have quite properly landed a person in jail earlier in America’s history.
But the social justice warriors of the Left, who perversely fetishize political protest as if it were the highest expression of civic responsibility, have defined deviancy down.
Whatever left-wingers do for their cause cannot be bad. And if it's violent, they find a way to excuse it and the media cheers them on, hailing them as heroic visionaries, early adopters, and trailblazing influencers.
Left-wingers believe that using physical force and intimidation for the right reasons is legitimate political protest protected by the First Amendment. In the leftist worldview, which holds that the U.S. Constitution protects everything they consider to be good whether or not it's mentioned in the actual text, this right to agitate on behalf of their twisted ideology supersedes all other rights.
The right to protest is exalted above property rights, according to Baltimore's joke of a mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D). While her city burned last year after black career criminal Freddie Gray died in police custody, the street gang-loving mayor consoled the rabble, implying their violent activities constituted legitimate contributions to public discourse.
"I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech," she said. "We also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well."
Black Lives Matter organizer DeRay Mckesson describes rioting as "a cry for justice." He told Yale students that "looting for me isn't violent, it's an expression of anger," and that "The act of looting is political. Another way to dissolve consent. Pressing you to no longer keep me out of this space, by destroying it."
Prosecutors and law enforcement need to start thinking outside the proverbial box and begin using the ample tools the law provides to deal with Soros, the most dangerous man in America, because he leads a massive, well-funded effort to deny the American people their right to participate in free and fair elections. The protesters whose groups Soros pays to break up political rallies are criminal thugs little different than the brown-shirted Sturmabteiling (S.A.) of the Third Reich.
If the tables were turned and a conservative billionaire were to lead and finance a violent organized insurgency against his political adversaries how long would it take before the authorities took action against him?
The criminal and civil provisions of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state racketeering statutes, and class-action lawsuits could be used to end Soros's long-running scheme to interfere with the civil rights of Americans and fundamentally transform the country.
American law protects free speech, the right of peaceable assembly, and the right to protest, but it does not protect efforts aimed at silencing people or preventing them from getting involved in the democratic process.
David French argues at NRO that leftist activities like blocking roads and "every other protest tactic that violates the rights of innocents" need to be punished. He writes:
"The leftist media loves to love this lawlessness, and public officials are relentlessly pressured into administering the most meaningless slaps on the wrist — sometimes even letting protesters walk without charges. The Left demands most-favored-criminal status for its social-justice warriors, and it typically gets exactly what it demands. Criminality largely goes unpunished, so-called direct action is rewarded with fawning accolades from the media and celebrities, and the rule of law is diminished."
When police refuse to combat unlawful, disruptive protest, they fail in their "basic duty to protect the law-abiding public," while creating "waves of bitterness and resentment."
French says unspecified parties should work around "spineless local prosecutors" and sue the protesters into penury.
"Answer each lawless act with a civil complaint, seek injunctions, take discovery to reveal the full extent of leftist astroturfing — do you really think these protests represent spontaneous, uncoordinated events? — and collect money damages. Protesters aren’t deterred by small fines and short detentions, but financially ruinous damage awards raise the stakes."
Professor Banzhaf explains how to do it.
Protesters, he notes, broke the law in Arizona when they recently blocked a major highway leading to a Trump event and created a 10-mile backup. "The threat of arrests — only three reportedly occurred — and fines weren't much of a deterrent."
"Effectively trapping people in cars by blocking traffic satisfies the elements of false imprisonment," which clears the way for civil litigation, according to Banzhaf.
The recent actions against Trump are just the beginning. Activists are going to become more aggressive in disrupting Republican events as the campaign heats up. He writes:
"Now spreading to political campaigns is what we have unfortunately all too often tolerated on college campuses — protestors who interrupt speakers to prevent others from hearing them, who physically block attendees' access, and who threaten violence to squelch speech. Unless we do something about it, the problem will persist — and could get worse."
Using civil legal action has been "so effective in fighting for civil rights, women's rights, smokers rights (to obtain damages), nonsmokers' rights (to clean air), gay rights, gun rights, and in many other areas," that it is time to consider using lawsuits to shut down criminal disrupters.
"Victims of disrupters can also sue for civil conspiracy even if their individual actions, such as yelling out at a rally, aren't themselves criminal, but become so when done as part of a conspiracy to unlawfully cause harm."
An added benefit of civil proceedings is that they would "open the door to discovery, including those aimed at verifying concerns expressed in various media that those with even deeper pockets are involved in the planning, funding, and/or execution of these criminal disruptions."
In other words, George Soros.
More trouble is on the horizon.
Soros-funded groups, including MoveOn, Institute for Policy Studies, Demos, People for the American Way, and National People's Action, have endorsed Democracy Spring, a leftist project that among other things aims to overturn the Citizens United ruling and thereby gut the free speech protections of the First Amendment.
Demonstrations are scheduled to begin April 2 in Philadelphia after which participants will spend 10 days walking 140 miles to the U.S. Capitol for what is being billed as "the largest civil disobedience action of the century."
According to lead organizer Kai Newkirk, Democracy Spring is not -- wink, wink -- an explicitly anti-Trump event. But it is certain to become one as Newkirk more or less admits in a lie-filled screed posted online. "Trump's statements, proposed policies, and threats of violence concerning undocumented immigrants, Muslims, the KKK, protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, and others have crossed a very serious line into the territory of fascism and hate speech."
And anyone who remembers the Arab Spring of 2011 knows that an event named after it isn't likely to be peaceful.

‘Syrians Got Talent!’: Brussels ‘Solidarity’ Concert To Protest ‘Demonisation’ Of Migrants

by Oliver JJ Lane 

A group of Brussels-based activists, including staff from the European Parliament are hosting a migrant-based talent show this evening for “solidarity and humanity”. Featuring five Syrian migrants, the event’s blurb entices would-be punters with the promise of singing, “their talent to the Eastern lute (Oud), the Kanoun [a kind of zither], the violin and the guitar”. Entry is €5 on the door — but free for ‘refugees’, of course — yet any politically uninterested fans of Levantine music won’t get away lecture-free.
In addition to the music promised at ‘Syrians Got Talent!’ are talks, as the “famous refugees” will “share their experiences with you… this evening is an opportunity to come together and share around a concert, everything that brings us together”.
Potentially sensitive to the icy reception migrants may have been receiving from some quarters since the Brussels bombings last week, the programme calls the event a “loud protest against the demonization of those Syrian refugees who bring a lot to Europe”.
Although the invitation encourages would-be concert goers to book in advance due to limited seating, there appears to be some concern over attendance of particular desired groups may be insufficient.
Taking to Facebook last night, French born co-organiser and European Parliament foreign policy adviser Schams El-Ghoneimi begged: “Friends, I URGENTLY need journalists to cover this in Brussels, they can call me directly to meet 5 WONDERFUL human beings who also happen to be Syrian refugees – and which will show their talent at this Thursday’s “SYRIANS GOT TALENT” event we’re organising near the EU Parliament”.
“My 5 syrian refugees friends are not just talented musicians: they each have a story to tell, dreams to share, in English/Dutch/French -if they have had time to learn it since their very recent arrival in Europe- or in Arabic (interpretation available).
“If you know a journalist who thinks THIS should get more media attention, please have them contact me directly for all the details”.
The invitation to the event makes clear the “anti-Fascist” sentiment of the evening, proclaiming the venue as the former home of artist Marcel Hastir, a member of the Second World War Belgian resistance.

ISIS' European Matrix: How the terror commandos spin their web of death.

by Emerson Vermaat 

“ISIS have 400 trained fighters in Europe who are poised to unleash more terror attacks with orders to wait for the right time to cause maximum carnage,” the British Daily Mail reported on March 23, 2016. ISIS terror commandos already struck in Paris on November 13, 2015, and in Brussels on March 22, 2016.
Abdel Hamid Abaaoud, the suspected mastermind of the terror attacks in Paris who operated from Belgium, said that around 90 jihadists had traveled from Syria to France and that “they were spread out around the Paris region: Syrians, Iraqis, British, French and Germans.”
ISIS jihadists receive their training in special training camps in Syria and Iraq. The focus of their training is on how to plot and carry out terror attacks in Europe. Last January, the European police organization Europol claimed in an alarming report that such training camps not only are in existence in Syria and Iraq, but also in the European Union and the Balkan countries. Terror attacks on soft targets are also being planned in Europe itself, the report warns. This finding proved to be right: Both terror attacks in Paris and Brussels were partially planned and prepared from Brussels.
On Saturday March 26, 2016, the Italian anti-terror police arrested Jamal Eddine Ouali, a 40-year-old Algerian who forged lots of identity papers for illegal immigrants and terrorists linked to the ISIS attacks in Paris and Brussels. Ouali was arrested near the southern city of Salerno. He had provided forged identity papers to Mohammed Belkaid, Salah Abdeslam and Najim Lachraaoui, all of whom were members of the ISIS terror commandos that struck in Paris and Brussels.
At least two of the ISIS terrorists who were involved in the terror attacks in Paris entered Europe as asylum-seekers. Ahmad Al-Mohammad and Mohammed Al-Mamoud arrived in Greece early October 2015 and then traveled to France via the so-called Balkan route. They carried forged Syrian passports and blew themselves up near the Stade de France on November 13, 2015.
ISIS operative Salah Abdeslam is a Belgian-Moroccan from the problematic Brussels immigrant neighborhood of Molenbeek. Back in September 2015, he drove from Brussels, possibly via Italy to collect forged identity papers, to the Central Railway station of the Hungarian capital of Budapest. It was there that he picked up two other important ISIS operatives, Mohammed Belkaid and Najim Lachraaoui. These two operatives had arrived in Budapest by mingling inconspicuously among the flow of asylum seekers. Abdeslam provided them with forged identity papers. Lachraaoui’s new identity was Soufiane Kayal and Belkaid’s new identity was Samir Bouzid. Lachraaoui, just 24 years old and also a Belgian Moroccan, was the bomb maker for the Paris and Brussels attacks. Nail bombs were used in the terror attacks in Brussels. Lachraaoui is originally from Schaarbeek, another troubled neighborhood of Brussels. He had left for Syria in 2013 where he joined ISIS. But on March 22, 2016, just three days after Salah Abdeslam had been arrested by the Belgian anti-terror police, he blew himself up in the entrance hall of Zaventem airport, near Brussels. Another ISIS operative who blew himself up at the airport was a 29-year-old Belgian Moroccan man named Ibrahim el Bakraoui. His 27-year-old brother Khalid el Bakraoui blew himself up in the Brussels metro station of Maalbeek. The total number of those who died is now 35, more than 200 people have been injured.
Crime is rampant among North African immigrants in Europe, and Ibrahim el Bakraoui’s career path from petty crime to jihadist terrorism is not exceptional at all. He was involved in armed robbery back in January 2010. He shot at police with a kalashnikov. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but in October 2014 a judge lamely ruled that Ibrahim Bakraoui should be released. Less then one year later, in June 2015, he traveled to Turkey. He was subsequently apprehended by the Turks in the city of Gaziantep, near the Turkish-Syrian border. They rightly assumed he was on his way to Syria to join the jihadists.  On July 14, 2016, the Turks expelled Bakraoui to the Netherlands, not to Belgium, warning that he is a dangerous jihadist. Due to a series of fateful miscommunications there was nobody to arrest Bakraoui upon his arrival at Amsterdam’s airport of Schiphol, even though he had violated the conditions of his release. Then in March 2016 he would be one of the suicide bombers in Brussels, an ISIS operation.
On behalf of ISIS, a Belgian-Moroccan named Hicham Chaib claimed responsibility for the attacks in Brussels. Hicham Chaib is now living in Raqqa, the so-called ISIS capital in Syria. In an atrocious ISIS video message, Chaib claimed that there would be more attacks. The British Daily Mail reported: “Brussels slaughter ‘just a taste’ of what is coming, warns ISIS chief executioner in chilling new video threatening further attacks on the West.” War criminal Chaib is “responsible for countless beheadings, crucifixions and amputations in Syria,” the Daily Mail writes. “At the end of the nine-minute video, the 34-year-old executes a kneeling ISIS prisoner, shooting him in the head.”
Belgian authorities just cannot cope with the most serious security threat since the Second World War. Belgium’s various police forces are understaffed and there is lack of communication between them. There are no-go areas in Brussels where well-armed Moroccan criminals dominate the neighborhood. Radical Muslims and terrorists can also count on the solidarity of fellow Muslims in the neighborhood. This is why it took five months before Salah Abdeslam, a very dangerous ISIS operative, could be arrested in Molenbeek.
It has become all too clear that the official policy of "multiculturalism" is not conducive to society’s health. Neither is mass immigration from the culturally-backward Muslim world.
Patrick Kanner, France’s minister for Cities, Youth and Sports, told French radio on Easter Sunday: “We know that there are today around a hundred neighborhoods in France which have potential similarities to what has happened in Molenbeek.”

It's a dire warning.

Europe Courting Godfather Erdogan

"We can open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria anytime and we can put the refugees on buses ... So how will you deal with refugees if you don't get a deal? Kill the refugees?" This was the question Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in true mafia style, asked European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on November 16, 2015 in a closed meeting in Antalya, Turkey, where the three met after the G20 summit.
While Tusk and Juncker have both declined to comment on whether the meeting took place, Erdogan has since then boasted that he is proud of the leaked minutes of the meeting, where he boldly blackmails EU leaders into paying him protection money.
Erdogan's threats were almost criminally sinister: "... the EU will be confronted with more than a dead boy on the shores of Turkey. There will be 10,000 or 15,000. How will you deal with that?"
Finally, feeding into the denial/ignorance of the European elites, who were at that time reeling from the Paris terror attacks that had occurred just three days earlier, Erdogan -- who himself has hosted and supported terrorist groups from Hamas to Hezbollah to ISIS -- told his European colleagues, "The attacks in Paris is [sic] all about poverty and exclusion. These people... will continue to be terrorists in Europe".
The leaked minutes furthermore showed Tusk and Juncker pleading with Erdogan, almost begging him to see reason, pathetically telling him that the EU has been treating him "as a prince in Brussels."
"Like a prince?" Erdogan retorted, "Of course. I'm not representing a third world country." He also told Juncker, who is the former prime minister of Luxembourg, not to compare Luxembourg to Turkey: "Luxembourg is just like a town in Turkey."
In a speech in Ankara on February 7, 2016, referring to the meeting with Juncker and Tusk, Erdogan boasted: "I am proud of what I said. We have defended the rights of Turkey and the refugees. And we told them: 'Sorry, we will open the doors and say goodbye to the migrants.'" He then proceeded to repeat that very threat:
"In the past we have stopped people at the gates to Europe, in Edirne we stopped their buses. This happens once or twice, and then we'll open the gates and wish them a safe journey, that's what I said. ... We do not have the word 'idiot' written on our foreheads. Don't think that the planes and the buses are there for nothing. We will show patience up to a point and then we'll do what's necessary."
A little over a month after Erdogan's latest threats, in February 2016, it all paid off. Erdogan received the European Union's assurance that his wishes had been granted in the form of the March 18 "EU-Turkey Statement." According to this agreement, the EU will pay Ankara €6bn over the next two years to be spent on Syrian refugees already in Turkey. Furthermore, by June 2016, at the latest, 80 million Turkish citizens will have visa-free access to the European Union, tempered by the EU requirement that Turkey has met "all benchmarks" by then. The promise to lift the visa requirements for Turkish citizens should be seen as real, however, and unlikely to be turned down because of "benchmarks" not being met -- especially as another part of the agreement clearly constitutes lip service, namely the commitment to "re-energize" Turkey's accession process to the European Union.
What has Turkey promised to do in return for these very tangible benefits? It has agreed that all new "irregular migrants" crossing from Turkey into Greek islands as of 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey. The agreement stipulates that this will take place
"in full accordance with EU and international law, thus excluding any kind of collective expulsion. Migrants arriving in the Greek islands will be duly registered and any application for asylum will be processed individually by the Greek authorities in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive, in cooperation with UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]. Migrants not applying for asylum or whose application has been found unfounded or inadmissible in accordance with the said directive will be returned to Turkey."
For every Syrian being returned to Turkey from Greek islands, another Syrian will be resettled from Turkey to the EU – up to 72,000 Syrians. Priority will be given to migrants who have not previously entered the EU and to those who have not tried to enter the EU illegally. Furthermore, Turkey will take any necessary measures to prevent the opening of new sea or land routes for illegal migration from Turkey to the EU.
By succumbing to what amounts to Turkey's blackmail, the EU hopes to stop the people-smugglers who operate out of Turkey, and end the stream of migration between Turkey and the EU -- or as the agreement says, "substantially and sustainably reduce it." They are also hoping that the agreement in itself will stem the flow by discouraging migrants from attempting the dangerous route, when they know that chances are that they will be returned to Turkey.
Seen from Europe's own, hallowed, self-declared humanitarian principles, the deal represents not only a cop-out to Erdogan's thuggish blackmail, but a complete sell-out: not even European leaders can pretend that Erdogan's Turkey represents a "safe third country." What will happen with the migrants, once they are returned to Turkey, no one knows. That much is clear from the EU's own answer to the question of how it can be sure that returned refugees or migrants will be given protection in Turkey. The EU's circular non-answer went: "Only asylum seekers that will be protected in accordance with the relevant international standards and in respect of the principle of non-refoulement will be returned to Turkey." As if Turkey under Erdogan has become world famous for respecting "international standards."
As late as March 18, on the day that the EU-Turkey Statement became official, Erdogan stated, "Democracy, freedom and the rule of law... For us, these words have absolutely no value any longer." The words "any longer" were only put there for show -- as any observer of Erdogan's Turkey will tell you, democracy, freedom and the rule of law, have never held any value for Erdogan.
Contrary to the views of the EU and the Obama Administration, Erdogan is not a democrat, and never has been. He has dedicated his career to transforming secular, ‎European-oriented Turkey into an Islamist state, and has repeatedly rejected Western attempts to portray his rule as an example of "moderate Islam." He ‎says that such a concept is "ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam."
As a young man, Erdogan embarked upon a career in Islamist movements and parties, in direct opposition ‎to the secular Kemalists, whose goal it was to keep Turkey a secular democracy with religion a wholly ‎private matter. One of the parties in which Erdogan was active, the Refah Party, was described by the Turkish historian Soner Cagaptay as "an explicitly Islamist party, which featured strong anti-‎Western, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic and anti-secular elements." ‎Erdogan was arrested and convicted for religious incitement in 1998 after Refah was banned by Turkey's constitutional court.‎
When Erdogan returned to the scene in 2002 with the so-called Justice and Development Party (AKP), his Islamist credentials could hardly be swept ‎under the carpet in a Turkey that was still committed to a secular state.
So what do you do if you want to ‎appear palatable to the secularists and the West? You introduce Islamic sharia law slowly ‎and cautiously, in a piecemeal fashion. That is what Erdogan has done: gradually bringing all the former secular ‎bulwarks against Islamists under his own Islamist sphere of influence -- the educational system, the courts ‎and even the military.
The agreement with Turkey should not be cause for celebration in Europe. Erdogan's threats shaped the deal in a way that casts doubt on any hope of him actually abiding by the vain European dream of ending the flow of migrants from Turkey and Europe. The question, though, is not just a matter of his willingness, which is open to dispute. It is as much a question of whether Turkey is even capable of stopping the people-smugglers. The latter would appear open to doubt. "Ankara is likely to have made promises in Brussels that it can't and won't deliver,' said Aykan Erdemir, a former opposition politician, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. "Human smugglers will outsmart the Turkish authorities just as they have outsmarted EU authorities."
Even if one assumes that Turkey is both willing and able to close down the migration routes between Turkey and Greece, it is inconceivable that the Turkish people-smugglers will simply give up their blockbuster business. It is far more likely that they will open up even longer and more dangerous routes from Turkey to Italy. And if this contravenes the agreement with the EU, there is no mechanism to stop Turkey from turning a blind eye to them.
"Everybody knows that nobody can stop a smuggler -- they'll always find a way," Ahmad, a Syrian who was smuggled into the UK, told the Spectator; "It will simply become more expensive."
That is of course the nightmare scenario for a desperate EU: No matter how hard it tries, or how much it bows to extortionist demands from Turkey, the migrant crisis will continue to grow. Even if Turkey closes down all routes from Turkey into Europe, refugees could take new routes through North Africa or the Caucasus. The deal with Turkey, in other words, is a far cry from being a cure.
A German think tank has simulated expected migrant flows through Europe this year, and has come up with an estimated range of 1.8 to 6.4 million people -- the latter being a worst-case scenario that would include large numbers from North Africa. According to French Defense Minister Jean-Yves le Drian, quoted on March 24, 800,000 migrants are currently in Libyan territory waiting to cross the Mediterranean.
This is what Angela Merkel arguably started with her promise to receive every refugee in Germany, and this is what her EU colleagues are now desperately trying to stop. Perhaps they are not trying hard enough. In the leaked minutes from the meeting with Erdogan, Tusk told Erdogan, "...the EU can make itself less attractive to refugees, but that is not the solution we want." Many Europeans might not agree with him.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

No Action Taken To Prevent Migrant Centre Sex Abuse

by Chris Tomlinson 

Critics have accused the German government of failing to enact laws to prevent abuse because the resulting better conditions in asylum homes may attract more migrants. Thousands of women and children are housed in German asylum homes but many of them live in constant fear of sexual violence. They may have reached Germany but often realize their safety is still not guaranteed. reports that the problem is widespread across every region of Germany.
Detective chief Ulf Küch from Braunschweig told Stern, “the problem is, unfortunately, everywhere,” and Johannes-Wilhelm Rörig, German federal government abuse commissioner, is convinced that, “sexual assaults happen in all the refugee camps in Germany,” saying that often fellow migrants are the perpetrators but sometimes even guards or volunteers are responsible.
In the initial draft of the first German asylum package that was negotiated in summer of last year, the phrase “vulnerable person with special needs,” was used as part of a proposed Protection Act for migrants. The act was meant to include minors, pregnant women, single parents and victims of sexual violence.
The proposed act would have been the basis for protective measures in migrant camps. Experts have been calling for such measures for a long time to protect vulnerable groups.
The clause would enact protections like gender separate showers and toilets, but also would create secure spaces for victims, and training for volunteers and guards to identify potential risks and signals of potential assaults before they happen.
The protection act clause was not included in the initial asylum package as authorities had so many migrants to care for they were overstretched trying to provide just basic accommodation. In reality hardly any municipality had the man power to implement the training and space required to enact the proposals.
Authorities said that the measures would be postponed for now but would be adopted in the second asylum package.
The New Years Eve Cologne sex attacks changed everything for the supporters of the proposal. The Socialist party said that the proposal could be shelved permanently as the government did not want to improve the asylum home conditions as it may encourage more migrants to come.
The Interior Ministry refused to comment on the matter but a government spokesperson blamed the Bavarian Christian Social Union saying that they had simply not wanted the proposal to go ahead because it was too difficult to implement.
Johannes-Wilhelm Rörig said the idea of letting women and children suffer sexual abuse so as not to attract more migrants was a “cold-hearted policy” and that the entire situation made him angry. He called it gross negligence for the government to merely wait until the next sexual abuse scandal happens in another asylum home before they bothered to act. “The denial of minimum legal standards is in itself a scandal, ” he said.
Volunteers at the asylum homes are often told not to speak publicly about abuses as authorities fear reports may only strengthen movements like PEGIDA and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party who campaign against mass migration. Some social workers in asylum homes have had to change how they act and dress because they can do nothing else to stop potential sexual abuse from male migrants. Female victims are also often afraid to report abuse because they believe it could affect their asylum claim.

One week after the terrorist attacks Brussels shuts down Jewish synagogues - but not the mosques

Women Only Carriages: Segregation Will Not Lead To Integration

by Janice Atkinson MEP 

In response to the attacks on women in Germany a train company has decided to declare some carriages ‘women only’. I take issue with this on a number of levels. I’m sure the left wing feministas will struggle with the concept of segregation but they’ll also be reticent in their response, if they respond at all. It takes those on the centre right to take up women’s rights and preserve our hard won freedoms.
Firstly, as a woman I really object to being segregated in any circumstance, least of all on a train.
As a wife, a mother of two boys and a female politician, I’m dismayed that the wrong message is being sent to the males in my life. Just because a small minority of men from a very different culture and religion are abusing Western hospitality, culture and norms, my men feel very strongly that their way of life and liberty is being threatened.
How long will it be until they are told they cannot travel on women only trains in the UK? Or that the taxi they hail can only be used by women? They will feel stigmatised because of the actions of a small number of men who are nothing like them.
This is not the world that our suffragette great grandmothers fought for. This is not the world that my father fought for on the Russian convoys in World War Two.
In Britain we already have Muslim segregation in our mosques, religious schools, universities and British born women are housebound, prevented from working and learning English.
I have met women who arrived here 40 years ago who had to learn English and did assimilate. Those same women have now forgotten how to speak English because they don’t have to. They shop in their own Muslim owned shops; their men drive them where they need to go; their children attend madrassas or single sex schools (all set up to accommodate their ‘needs’) and they still practice arranged marriages.
They no longer mix with the English they met a couple of decades ago. That is a tragedy for both communities and breeds hostility and fear.
Their daughters, who have been educated in the UK, achieved at universities to become teachers and doctors have imported their husbands from Pakistan. Why, I asked them, have you married an uneducated man, brought over here to drive a taxi, rather than marry an educated Muslim born here? They shift uncomfortably and mutter ‘we couldn’t find anyone suitable’. I challenged this assumption.
If you go to West Yorkshire you will find rows and rows of houses where English isn’t spoken because they cannot speak English. Equally, their children are now marrying men and women from Pakistan who cannot speak English and are culturally and educationally beneath them.
How is this new generation of young men, or the mothers, going to be able to recognise radicalisation if they cannot speak English?
We haven’t sleep walked into this. It was a deliberate policy of the Blair/Brown years, of multiculturalism and the seeping threat of racist outpourings via the human rights industry (Mrs Blair and her ilk). And all this aided and abetted by Labour who deliberately infiltrated our teaching profession, colleges, universities, public services, police, BBC and legal service with left-leaning bigots.
They have created a topsy-turvy world where Christians are marginalised, LGBT and transgender is the new norm and anyone who disagrees with them from either a common sense secular or a non-secular position is branded a nasty racist nutter. Their rights, views and religious beliefs are secondary to the Muslim needs.
And I speak as someone who has no faith, but I absolutely uphold the right of those that do to have their views and speak up for them. They have thousands of years of doctrine, not the leftish claptrap multiculturism nonsense that is the current vogue.
The Germans, instead of segregating women, should have rounded up the potential attackers, placed them in secure units, ascertained their views on Western norms and, if they do not like how Western women dress, drink, have sex, work, are educated and how they think, then they should be deported.
I shall be raising this in the European Parliament. It will not be placed on the formal agenda – just like the sex attacks in Cologne and other European capitals – as the left and Shultz like to debate the plight of refugee women and children, over the rights of their own citizens.
Funnily enough, Mrs Merkel is thinking what some of us have been thinking, and is now spinning a u-turn and demanding integration or deportation. Yet Mrs Merkel will not get integration with segregation.

"Excuses" for Terrorists

The day after the Brussels terror attack, landmarks in the UK were lit up in the colors of the Belgian flag. Portions of the press in Britain excoriated the country on this. Why, they asked, had the now-traditional, mawkish ceremony occurred the day after the attacks rather than on the evening of the attacks themselves? Why were we a day late with our lights when other cities had managed to do their "solidarity" gesture straightaway? Such are our times. And such are our questions.
If there is a question in all this, it is not why it took more than 24 hours for the UK to find its Belgian-colored lights, but why after 67 years of terror, it still has not found the simple blue and white lights it would need to project the flag of Israel onto any public place.
It is not as though there haven't been plenty of opportunities. Israel's enemies have provided us with even more opportunities for light displays than have now been offered to the light-infatuated by the followers of ISIS.
You could argue that in the last seven decades, public attitudes have changed; that today futile gestures of "solidarity" are all the rage, but in generations past they were not. It might have been unheard of for any British institution to beam the colors of the Israeli flag into buildings in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973. But when sentimentalism came to Britain, it came in a big way. If it had not struck us by the time of the first intifada (1987-1993), it certainly had by the time of the second one (2000-2005).
During that period, thousands of Israelis were killed and wounded by Palestinian terrorists. Yet there were no projections of the Israeli flag onto public buildings. Again, during the 2006 Hezbollah War, landmarks went unlit -- the same as after each salvo of rockets launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip, freshly evacuated by Israel to allow the Arabs there to create the Singapore or Côte d'Azure of the Middle East.
When Israel is attacked, the steps of the Israeli embassies in London and other European capitals are not littered with flowers, teddy bears or candles, or scrawled notes of sympathy. Indeed, whenever Israelis are attacked and murdered, there is a response at Israel's embassies. It tends to be less teddy-obsessed; it consists more of crowds roaring in rage against Israel and having to be held back from further antagonism by the local police.
It is possible that there are those who believe Israel is simply on a different continent from Europe and that, despite being an essentially Western society, it is not one to which we feel sufficiently close. Whenever a terrorist outrage occurs in a Western capital these days, there are always those who ask why the mourning for Paris or Brussels, say, is stronger than the mourning for Ankara or Beirut.
But the Paris/Brussels question for Jerusalem rarely, if ever, gets asked. One could take the lowest road and say it is because in Israel the victims are Jews. But there is also an explanation just as true. It is that Israel is seen as different because when Israel is attacked by terrorists, it is seen by a great number of people in the West not to be an innocent victim. It is seen as a country which might have in some way brought the violence upon itself.
Supposed excuses for this view may vary, from objecting to farms on the Golan Heights to Israel's refusal to allow weapons intended to annihilate it to be poured into the Gaza Strip. Others include Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank, while at the same time disregarding that to most Palestinians all of Israel, "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea," as they put it, is one big "settlement" -- to be exterminated, as openly set forth in both the Hamas and PLO charters. Neither charter has ever been renounced. If you look at any map of "Palestine," it is actually a map of Israel, but with "al-Quds" instead of "Jerusalem" and "Jaffa" instead of "Tel Aviv." For these Palestinians, there is, in fact, just one underlying offense: the existence of the State Israel itself.
This piece of land, however, as Canaan, the Fertile Crescent, and Judea and Samaria, has been home to the Jews for nearly 4000 years -- despite Romans, Saladin, the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate.
What remains are facts. And what the facts show is that all these "excuses" for terrorism are incorrect. Israel is not, for instance, carrying out the "war crimes," "apartheid" or "genocide," which propagandists have persuaded Europeans that Israel is engaged in. Israel is, quite the contrary, fighting an enemy that breaks every rule of armed conflict, and Israel responds in a manner so precise and so moral (as the High Level Military Group concluded in its assessment of the 2014 Gaza conflict) that allied nations are presently concerned that they will not be able to live up to the Israeli military's moral standards the next time they go to war.
Israel, like the rest of the West, is trying to find a legal and decent way to respond to an illegal and indecent set of terrorist tactics. It is also not true that Israel's enemies have some righteous territorial dispute. They already have the whole of the Gaza Strip, and if they wanted most of the West Bank, they could have had it at almost any time since 1948, including at Camp David in 2000. On each occasion, it was the Palestinians who turned down all offers -- without even proposing a counter-offer.
Even so, in the eyes of many Europeans, Israel is seen to have done something for which suicide bombers are thought to be an understandable response. Whether said or unsaid, this is the rationale that makes terror against Israel a lesser offense than terror everywhere else.
Well, what a shock the rest of the world will one day have to undergo. Because if you allow an "excuse" for one false narrative of Islamic extremists, you will then have to allow it for the others. You will, for example, have to accept the word of ISIS that Belgium is a "crusader" nation, deserving to be attacked because it is involved in a "crusade" against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). You will have to accept that for standing up to the Islamic extremists in Mali and Syria, these Islamic extremists have the right to attack the people of Belgium, France, Sierra Leone, Canada, the United States and Australia.
You will have to accept that Europeans can be killed for publishing a cartoon, simply because a foreign terrorist group says so, and then accept that the cartoonists brought it themselves.
The enemies of Israel and the enemies of the rest of the civilized world have some minor differences, but there is far more that they have in common. They are both driven not only by the same jihadist ideologies but by the insistence that their political and religious view of the world is relevant not just for them, but needs to be implemented against all of the rest of us.
It may take a while to realize it, but we are all in the same boat. It also may take a while until European cities reach for the blue and white bulbs; but if we start to question where those bulbs went, we might get closer not only to understanding Israel's predicament, but to understanding the predicament that is also now our own.

The EU Bows Down to Turkey’s Dictatorial Demands

 by Ryan Fiske

The horrendous attacks in Brussels last week understandably dominated the news. The slaughter of innocent civilians in yet another of Europe’s capitals has left many questioning how exactly our membership of the EU makes us safer. It is far too early to fully ascertain how exactly the attacks were carried out, but it is highly likely at least some of the terrorists will have been trained in Syria before returning to Brussels. This will again draw attention to the migrant crisis and the EU’s most recent attempt to resolve it with the assistance of Turkey.
The last fortnight saw the European Union — in a fit of desperation and sheer panic — sign a deal with Turkey which promised to stop the flood of migrants and refugees into Europe. Unfortunately, for the countless number of genuine refugees, this so called “solution” to the migration crisis is nothing of the sort.
Within a few days of being implemented the deal was already close to collapse. The grand promises of returning migrants to Turkey within days is at complete odds with the continuing chaos in Greece.
Meanwhile, the UN’s refugee agency, which has been providing much of the actual support so far, has announced it will suspend some of its operations in protest at the EU’s plans. The Greek government has admitted it is not able to start sending refugees back to Turkey.
The EU’s expectation cash-strapped Greece could get the necessary administration in place by Sunday — less than two days after the agreement was signed — demonstrates the disconnect between the EU’s plans and reality.
The deal is centred on the premise the EU will return all migrants who land in Europe straight back to Turkey. This is supposed to remove the incentive for the migrants and refugees to make the sea crossing in the first place.
In return for Turkey taking them back, the EU has agreed to resettle one refugee directly from the camps in Turkey for every migrant Turkey takes back from Greece. This is hardly going to resolve a huge crisis very fast.
There is still no consensus amongst European nations on where these refugees will be resettled. Several EU countries — Hungary and Slovakia — remain firm in their opposition to any form of mandatory resettlement programme.
This means that under the voluntary arrangement currently in place, there are only 54,000 places currently earmarked for refugees. At the current rate, and with migrants are still arriving on the shores of the Greek islands by the boatload, there will be a shortage of places by the end of April.
Turkey is having a much more profitable time, extracting vast concessions from desperate European leaders. The EU has agreed to pour even larger sums of money into Turkish coffers, doubling its previous €3 billion commitment, with little to no guarantee any of this money will be used for its intended purpose – housing genuine refugees.
More worrying are the promises of visa-free travel for Turkish citizens — who are predominantly Muslim — as a condition of the deal, beginning in June. When similar visa liberalisations were carried out with countries in the Western Balkans in 2010, there was a spike in asylum applications from residents of these countries, particularly Albania and Serbia — countries which the EU considers safe!
Turkey’s 75 million strong population is much larger than those of Serbia and Albania. It would be no surprise to see that once this visa liberalisation has been carried out, many Turks will then travel legally to the EU under this temporary visa system in an effort to eventually claim asylum and to escape an increasingly authoritarian Turkish regime.
Turks will have visa-free access to the Schengen area for 90 days. After this they will be resident illegally — but again, as with the Balkan states, the process of deportation will be long and difficult.
This is before we consider some of the polls coming out of Turkey, which indicate worrying support for ISIS amongst the Turkish population.
Considering the wave of terrorist attacks which are already hitting the country with worrying regularity, it would be madness to open up our borders even further. This so-called ‘solution’ to the migration crisis will merely deepen the problems for many years, and will lead to further destabilisation of the European Union.
The practical failures of this deal are not its only failings: it also serves to destroy any moral standing the EU may claim to have. In the recent years and months President Erdogan has been hell-bent on destroying Turkey’s secular democracy.
This is a regime which has recently silenced dissidents by forcibly seizing control of opposition newspapers and turning them into mouthpieces of the government. It’s a regime which has implicitly, and at times actively, supported ISIS.
It regularly targets its only effective opposition — the Kurdish Peshmerga — with air strikes under the guise of attacking Islamist terror groups. The government turns a blind eye to buying oil from ISIS-controlled territory, allowing their country to be a vital financial lifeline to the terrorist group.
Turkey is a huge country which European leaders — most notably David Cameron — want to join the EU. Erdogan shows utter contempt for the very values the EU is supposed to protect.
Last week he stated: “Democracy, freedom and the rule of law… for us these words have absolutely no value.” The fact European leaders are even willing to consider welcoming such a figure into their ‘club’ reveals both their desperation and their short-sightedness.
The European Union is giving political succour to this dreadful Erdogan’s regime – as a result of its own failures to take control of the migration crisis. Regardless of how ineffective this deal may be, it is morally reprehensible for Britain to be a part of an organisation which is so willing to cave in to the demands of a tyrant, who is willing to support a terrorist organisation to further his own ends as a dictator.
Britain should not be a part of a union which is forced to sacrifice its most basic and intrinsic values of democracy and freedom. There is only one way for the United Kingdom to restore its own moral standing in the world and this is to Get Britain Out of the tyrant-supporting European Union.

Government Handing Cash To Mosques, Not Schools, To Teach Migrants To Read

by Chris Tomlinson 

The German government has given money to mosques in hopes migrants might be more receptive to integration classes and schooling from religious authorities. Literacy courses in Turkish-run mosques have been funded by the education ministry for the past two years, with the hope that new migrants will find the familiar environment easier than a German classroom. Authorities are also hoping that integration courses offered in mosques will help stem the growing tide of radicalisation in the German Islamic community, reports Die Welt.
Syrian teacher Diaa Shmmou said that the process to teach new migrants literacy will be a slow one as they will have to learn the German language, a new way of writing, and a new alphabet to read. Shmmou was happy that the government was giving money to the mosques to facilitate the teaching saying that migrants, “are in a place in which they trust and where they feel comfortable.”
The courses are the brainchild of the Society for Intercultural Coexistence, a “non-governmental organisation” which is funded primarily by the Federal Ministry of Education. The project aims to prevent the radicalisation of new migrants by getting them into “approved” mosques and keeping them away from mosques that are known to preach a more radical version of Islam that does not agree with German values.
One of the approved mosques is the Selimiye Mosque in Dortmund-Eving. The mosque is located very close to a camp that houses a large number of migrants and is funded by the Turkish government under the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs organisation.
The Turkish religious authority was under fire this week when they released a cartoon for children in which they glorified martyrdom. The same authority is connected to the mosques the German government is funding.
Many of the migrants who attend the literacy classes have very low levels of education. Many of the students have only completed a primary school level and some have not attended formal schooling at all and are functionally illiterate, even in their native language. This revelation led at least one German education expert to claim that most new migrants would be dependent on the German welfare state for their entire lives.
Syrian teacher Shmmou confirms that many of the migrants she teaches lack the most basic education saying, “it is not easy to teach these people.” Shmmou taught English at a private school in Syria until she fled the country two years ago and has since been hired by the Society of Intercultural Coexistence to teach migrants German and to give them someone who can speak their language fluently in order to facilitate integration.
Education is one of the key concerns that has emerged out of the migrant crisis. Chancellor Angela Merkel and others promised that migrants would be a new source of wealth as they would bring skills to help boost the German economy and it’s ageing population.
The government has become more and more desperate to find ways to educate migrants in order that they can participate in German society, but many experts believe that migrants and their children may constitute a huge drain on European countries’ welfare systems. They may end up being a “lost generation,” unable to hold down meaningful work or participate in society.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Europe Still Sleeps, and Europeans Still Die: And Europe can’t say it wasn’t warned.

by Bruce Thornton  

While England Slept is the title of Winston Churchill’s 1938 book documenting the failure of England to counter Germany’s rearmament. Despite the gruesome price paid for ignoring Churchill’s warnings, postwar Europe has slumbered for decades while its cultural dysfunctions have nurtured the jihadist violence erupting across Europe. Last week’s attacks in Brussels, coming four months after the Paris attacks that killed 130, suggests there are more attacks to come. According to AP, 400-600 ISIS-trained terrorists are making their way to Europe.
Europe can’t say it wasn’t warned. In 2002 Oriana Fallaci published The Rage and the Pride, a passionate defense of Western civilization and an indictment of those who appease Islamic illiberalism.  Ten years ago Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept gave first-hand reports of Europe’s feckless immigration policies that fostered and appeased Muslim radicalism and violence. A year later Claire Berlinski’s Menace in Europe and Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan sounded the same alarms. And there are the dystopian novels of Michel Houellebecq like Platform and last year’s Submission, which link Europe’s cultural and spiritual exhaustion to the rise of homegrown jihadism and Islamization.
An even more important prophet is Bat Ye’or, whose Eurabia (2005) documented “Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers that propagate it.” The result is the dhimmi mentality of Europe’s elites, which manifests in word and deed Western inferiority to Islam, and guilt over alleged crimes against the Muslim world.
But a secularized Europe committed to multicultural fantasies and la dolce vita as the highest goods has dismissed these prophets as bigots and “Islamophobes” who distort the “religion of peace.” Yet after the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1923––the “catastrophe” Osama bin Laden mentioned after 9/11–– the theorists of modern jihadism were forthright and plain in expressing the intolerant and triumphalist Islamic beliefs and jihadist imperative consistent with Ye’or’s analysis. Islam’s nature, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna wrote, is “to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations, and extend its power to the entire planet.” Fellow Muslim Brother Sayyid Qutb concurred: “Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its path.” The Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Revolution, agreed: “The great prophet of Islam carried in one hand the Koran and in the other a sword; the sword is for crushing the traitor and the Koran for guidance . . . Islam is a religion of blood for infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”
Nor are these sentiments alien to traditional Islamic beliefs as codified in the Koran, Hadith, Muslim histories, and the biographies of Mohammed. As such, the jihadist imperative, despite anticolonial and nationalist rhetoric, was the foundational motivation for the military attacks on Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and today it still drives the terror campaigns against Israel waged by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO. Jihad in the name of Allah sparked the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and the subsequent launching of the Iranian terrorist mother ship from which numerous jihadist organizations have continued to receive training and financial support. The Taliban who gave sanctuary to al Qaeda in Afghanistan are close students of jihad and shari’a law, executing transgressors in a soccer stadium paid for by the EU.
Nor has the West been spared. Jihad lay at the heart of al Qaeda’s serial attacks on the U.S. and its military in 1993 (first World Trade Center bombing), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (East African embassies), 2000 (U.S.S. Cole), and the spectacular carnage of September 11, 2001, as well as inspiring the terrorist murders in Madrid (2004), London (2005), Fort Hood (2013), Boston (2013), San Bernardino (2015), Paris (January and November, 2015), and now Brussels. And don’t forget the torture, rape, and murders perpetrated by ISIS, the latest and most successful example of modern jihadism inspired by traditional Islamic doctrine.
We know the terrorists’ Islamic bona fides because they continually tell us why they want to kill us, in speeches, internet videos, and writings filled with Koranic verses and precedents from the life of Mohammed. Yet despite this evidence, elites in Europe and the U.S. refuse to confront the religious origins of jihadism, settling for the stale environmental and psychological causes dear to the materialist mentality. Thus they continue to chant the “nothing to do with Islam” mantra, as our president did in response to the Brussels attack. “ISIL is not ‘Islamic,’” the president asserted. “No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” The first two clauses are patently false to Koranic commands and Islamic history, and the third is a non sequitur.
But the most powerful refutation of this common delusion is the scarcity of public protests by observant Muslims against the “extremists” who allegedly have “hijacked” their faith. After each jihadist atrocity there is typically more celebratory ululation and cries of “Allahu Akbar” in the Muslim world than marches against terrorism by heretical “extremists.” There are no “million Muslim marches,” no “not in our name movements,” no large scale Muslim attendance at memorial services for the victims. Yet perceived insults to Islam or Mohammed will produce violent mobs and lethal rampages.
Nor should this surprise us, when poll after poll registers significant pluralities and majorities of Muslims who approve of violence against infidels, and support the implementation of illiberal shari’a law. The latest evidence for such support from “moderate Muslims” comes from Brussels, where the planner of the Paris and Brussels attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was hiding in plain sight in the Muslim-dominant district of Molenbeek. Yet it still took four months for Belgian police to find him, and when they moved in for the arrest, they were met with rocks and bottles from residents who knew he was there and never tipped off the authorities.
Yet this is just one of many such enclaves in Europe. Ca n’Anglada in Barcelona, Marxloh and Neukölln in Germany, Seine-Saint-Denis and Clichy-sous-Bois in France, Malmo in Sweden, and many other towns and neighborhoods across Europe house disaffected and unassimilated Muslim immigrants whose faith predisposes them to contempt for the infidel and his secular laws, and justifies violence against the enemies of Islam. And despite the segregation, unemployment, crime, costly welfare transfers, and jihad-preaching mosques in these neighborhoods, Europe has accepted hundreds of thousands more Muslim immigrants in 2015 alone. Undoubtedly among them are untold numbers of ISIS-trained terrorists, many of them from the 5000 European Muslims who have gone to fight for ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
That is the reality everyone knows who wants to know. But too many in the West do not want to know, just as those enamored of Soviet communism did not want to know about the gulags and show-trials and engineered famines that killed at least 20 million. Like yesterday’s communist sympathizers, today the sleepwalkers of Europe are trapped in their ideological fever-dreams––fashionable self-loathing, guilt for colonialism and imperialism, sentimental one-worldism, and noble-savage multicultural fantasies. Worst of all, they are crippled by a refusal to appreciate and defend their political and cultural inheritance––prosperity, human rights, freedom, consensual government, and tolerance––created by their ancestors.
The character of Michel in Houellebecq’s Platform (2001) articulates the failure of civilizational nerve that has paved the way for metastasizing jihadist violence. Europe’s forbears, the jaded hedonist Michel muses, “believed in the superiority of their civilization,” and “invented dreams, progress, utopia, the future.” But their “civilizing mission,” their “innocent sense of their natural right to dominate the world and direct the path of history had disappeared.” All that is left is the dwindling cultural capital being squandered by their descendants, who have lost “those qualities of intelligence and determination,” and who exist only for the present and its material pleasures. Like like Michel, they are “decadent” and “given over entirely to selfishness.”
But at least Michel, unlike the sleepwalking European elite, recognizes that this is cultural suicide: “I was aware, however, that such a situation was barely tenable, that people like me were incapable of ensuring the survival of a society. Perhaps, more simply, we were unworthy of life.”
The terrorists of Paris and Brussels agree.