Saturday, October 27, 2018

WAS THE MUSLIM'S MOHAMMED A PEDOPHILE? OR JUST A GANG RAPER? - THE MUSLIM SUBCULTURE OF DEATH, HATE AND RAPE

Calling Mohammed a Pedophile Not Covered by Free Speech, European Court Rules


By Patrick Goodenough | October 26, 2018 | 12:05 AM EDT


Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted under Austria’s penal code in 2011 for “denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion.” (Screen capture: YouTube)
(CNSNews.com) – Europe’s top human rights court has ruled that comments about Mohammed having pedophilic tendencies are not covered by the right to freedom of expression, agreeing with the assessment of courts in Austria that the remarks constituted “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace.”
A seven-judge European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) panel in Strasbourg concluded that the Austrian courts had “carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.”
Thursday’s decision came nine years after Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian political scientist and activist, held a seminar in Vienna where among things she criticized the treatment of women in Islam. The topic of Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha, the youngest of his dozen wives and concubines, came up.
According to Islamic texts, the 7th century Arabian who founded Islam was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine.
The court record quotes Sabaditsch-Wolff as having said that Mohammed “liked to do it with children,” (other translations of the German comment render it “had a thing for little girls”) and saying, “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”
In 2011, Sabaditsch-Wolff was convicted under Austria’s penal code for “denigrating the teachings of a legally recognized religion” and fined 480 euros (about $546), plus costs. She was acquitted on a charge of incitement.
Sabaditsch-Wolff appealed the decision, but a higher court in Austria upheld it.
In June 2012 the case was lodged with the ECHR, which hears allegations of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Sabaditsch-Wolff complained her freedom of expression rights under the convention had been violated.
She said the Austrian courts had failed to address the substance of the statements in question, in the light of her right to freedom of expression.
If they had done so, Sabaditsch-Wolff argued, they would have qualified that as value judgments based on facts, rather than as mere value judgments.
The ECHR judges disagreed.
They said although people must tolerate the denial by others of their religious beliefs, in cases where comments are “likely to incite religious intolerance” a state might legitimately consider them to be “incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.”
The judges also said the subject matter “was of a particularly sensitive nature,” and that the authorities in Austria were “in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.”

Muslims, like these Bangledeshis praying during Ramadan, do not believe Mohammed was divine. (Photo: OIC/Flickr)
‘Not a worthy subject of worship’
Earlier one Austrian court declared, in a ruling cited by the ECHR on Thursday, that Sabaditsch-Wolff’s had wrongfully accused Mohammed of pedophilic tendencies because he remained married to Aisha until he died – at which time she was 18, “and had therefore passed the age of puberty.”
Curiously, the ECHR judges endorsed the Austrian courts’ findings that the comments “had not been made in an objective manner aiming at contributing to a debate of public interest, but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Mohammed was not a worthy subject of worship.”
(In fact, while Muslims revere Mohammed they do not view him as divine – nor did he claim to be – and they strongly dispute that they “worship” him at all. The Islamic declaration of faith, the shahada, states, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.”)
Furthermore, the judges agreed with the Austrian courts that the applicant “must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others.”
“The national courts found that [Sabaditsch-Wolff’s] had subjectively labelled Mohammed with pedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”
Although the ruling was now been handed down, parties to any case have a three-month period to request that a decision be referred to the ECHR’s five-judge Grand Chamber, which will decide whether a case deserves further examination. If so, it will hear the case and deliver a final judgment.
Assertions about the age of Aisha at the consummation of her marriage to Mohammed are based on what scholars view as authoritative Hadiths (sayings or traditions ascribed to Mohammed), including several by the 9th century scholar Bukhari.
One of them (Vol. 5, Book 58, No. 234) reads in part: “Narrated by Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years) … Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.”
Although there is some dispute about the ages of some of Mohammed’s other wives and concubines, some reports say the youngest after Aisha were Mulaykah, 13, and Safiyah, about 16. At the time of their marriages Mohammed was reportedly 57-58 years-old. Other wives and concubines are reported to have ranged in age from about 19 to 55.
The full ECHR ruling is here.



Seven Found Guilty Over Rotherham Grooming and Rape of Young Girls



Rotherham Grooming Gang
South Yorkshire Police
205
4:11




Seven men of Pakistani heritage from South Yorkshire were found guilty of sexual offences against underage girls in the latest abuse trial following the inquiry into the Rotherham grooming gang scandal.

Salah Ahmed El-Hakam, 39, Asif Ali, 33, Tanweer Ali, 37, Mohammed Imran Ali Akhtar, 37,  Nabeel Kurshid, 35, Iqlak Yousaf, 34, and a seventh man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were convicted on Monday of grooming and sexually abusing five underage girls between 1998 and 2005, reports the BBC.
An eighth man, Ajmal Rafiq, 39, was found not guilty of indecent assault and false imprisonment.
During the trial, the victims revealed the extent of the abuse, with one survivor telling the court that she had been raped by “at least 100 Asian men” by the age of 16.
Another had told the jury she had been bitten and raped in Sherwood Forest by two men after they fed her drugs.
One girl had fallen pregnant and had an abortion by the age of 14, while another had given birth by the age of 15, her son fathered by her abuser.
The prosecutor had told the jury, during the eight-week trial, that the gang had targetted the five girls because they “were easy targets” from broken homes who “wanted to be loved” and were “lured by the excitement of friendship with older Asian youths”.


The jury also heard that the victims were “frequently in cars [with their rapists] stopped by the police but this did not deter the abusers”.
The convictions are the latest to follow on from the National Crime Agency’s (NCA) Operation Stovewood — the country’s largest law enforcement investigation into grooming gang-based child sexual exploitation (CSE).
Operation Stovewood came about as a result of the 2014 Jay Report which found that 1,400 — estimates revised to up to 1,510 last year — mainly white, working-class girls had been groomed and raped by gangs of mostly Pakistani-origin Muslim men between 1997 and 2013. The report also exposed the culture in police and social services of political correctness and of not believing victims that allowed the abuse to go on for so long.
This is just the latest conviction of a Pakistani-heritage grooming gang from Rotherham, with another recent trial ending in the sentencing of 20 abusers in Huddersfield.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid — himself of Muslim, Pakistani heritage — was criticised by leftists for his reaction to the conviction of the Huddersfield rape gang when he condemned them as “sick Asian paedophiles”.
In an interview with The Times on Saturday, Mr Javid said that Pakistani-heritage child gang rapists had “disgraced” his ethnic heritage, admitting that “[there] must be some cultural connection, some reason”.
In July, the Home Secretary ordered research into the ethnic and cultural component of grooming gangs and has vowed to fight “uncivilised” forced marriage in the UK.


The full details of the latest convictions are as follows:
Mohammed Imran Akhtar (37), of Rotherham, was found guilty of one count of rape, three counts of indecent assault, sexual assault, procuring a girl to have unlawful sex with another, aiding and abetting Tanweer Ali to commit rape.
Asif Ali (33), of Rotherham, was acquitted of one count of indecent assault and found guilty of two counts of indecent assault.
Tanweer Ali (37), of Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape, two counts of indecent assault, and one count of false imprisonment.
Salah El-Hakam (39), of Sheffield, was found guilty of one count of rape.
Nabeel Kurshid (35), of Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of indecent assault.
Iqlak Yousaf (34), of Rotherham, was found guilty of two counts of indecent assault and two counts of rape.
One man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted of abducting a child and rape but found guilty of two counts of rape.
The seven are due to be sentenced November 16th.

MONICA SHOWALTER - INVADING ILLEGALS REJECT MEXICO'S OFFER - "We're headed north to loot America where they Democrat Party will hand us everything we vote for!"

So much for 'refuge.' Caravan army turns up its nose at Mexico's generous offer of asylum



If there's anything that points to the political nature of the thousands-strong migrant caravan heading north to the U.S., it's the migrants' rejection of Mexico's generous offer of political asylum, along with jobs, medical care and big benefit packages. According to this Associated Press report, they'd rather confront Trump.
Migrants traveling in a caravan through southern Mexico have rejected a proposal by President Enrique Pena Nieto that they apply for refugee status in the country and obtain benefits.
Coordinators of the caravan read out the president’s plan called “You are at home.” Migrants shouted “Gracias!” but “No, we’re heading north!”
Activist Irineo Mujica of the Pueblo sin Fronteras group is supporting the migrants in the caravan. He told the group that 80 percent of those who apply for protective status would be rejected and deported.
Sitting at the edge of the edge of the town square, 58-year-old Oscar Sosa of San Pedro Sula, Honduras concurred.
"Our goal is not to remain in Mexico," Sosa said. "Our goal is to make it to the (U.S). We want passage, that's all."
There are signficantly mixed reports about that, suggesting the Mexican government isn't on all one page as to what they intend to do.
William LaJeunesse of Fox News reports that Mexican cops were commandeering trucks and buses to load the migrants up for travel north, while NBC News reports that Mexicans were picking off the smaller groups that have spun off from the original caravan mass and declaring them illegal. The smaller groups, by the way, have reportedly spun off because of the presence of so many criminals and gang members in the ranks of the larger group, with LaJeunesse reporting that the invading army has fallen from 7,000 to 4,000. The pickoffs, however, seem to be followed by calls from the far-left caravan organizers to stay with the larger group, which just happens to support their original political aim of using of the caravan of large numbers to confront Trump and render the U.S. border meaningless.
Either way, the Mexican government is not helping in the transport regard, but that looks more like weakness, and not wanting this to be a problem with the U.S. or themselves more than anything else.
The migrants, after all, have left a lot of trash, and many are stealing from shops to survive the journey. Here is a recent tweet about the trash:





Mexican woman laments trash covered streets after migrant caravan passes through.

"The migrants left and left us the garbage. What a waste of food, when they said they don't even have enough to eat."



What's indisputable here is that weak as it is, and as concerned about its own security as it is, Mexico has issued a very, very generous offer to the migrants that they've turned up their noses at.
Which tells us one thing: That the migrant caravan isn't comprised of the sweet little daisies seeking asylum from violence that the press, the NGOs and the Catholic Church are portraying, but a group of hardcore pick-and-choose activists who will settle for nothing less than U.S. benefit packages, borders and U.S. rule of law, be damned. They want what they want, they want it for free and they want it on their own terms. They're political activists hellbent on teaching Trump a lesson and helping themselves to the U.S. taxpayer-paid goodies, not people fleeing violence and grateful for whatever they can get, the way real refugees, such as the fleeing Venezuelans, are. These mostly military-aged young men, often with criminal records, have a message to send, and they're happy to act as pawns for their NGO masters.
If that's not reason enough to halt them at the border, whether by troops or a wall, what is? These caravaners aren't who they say they are.



Mexico Offers to Provide Jobs, Education to Caravan Migrants



The Honduran migrants heading toward the US border left the Mexican town of Huixtla at dawn after taking a one-day break to rest
AFP
 112
2:32

Mexico’s government unveiled a plan to provide employment, health care, and education to thousands of Central American migrants who are part of the caravan that is traveling from Honduras towards the U.S border.

This week, Mexico’s government unveiled their plan called “Estas En Tu Casa” or “You Are in Your Home.” The program provides the migrants with temporary employment, access to government-funded health care, and education for their children. The migrants who take part in the program will be employed in the cleaning and maintenance of public buildings and roads. As Breitbart News has reported, thousands of migrants from Honduras are making their way into Mexico in an effort to reach the U.S. Border. The caravan has caused international tension as the U.S. government threatened to remove international aid to Central America if the caravan is not stopped.
In order to take part in the program, the migrants and their families must be in the country legally and reach out to immigration authorities who will sign them up. The program will only be available in the southern Mexican states of Chiapas and Oaxaca. Those who are part of the caravan and entered the country illegally will be given time to begin the immigration process and must follow Mexico’s immigration law. Those in the program will also be given Mexico’s version of a social security number, commonly known as CURP (Clave Unica de Registro Publico) so they are able to open bank accounts and carry out other bureaucratic processes.
According to Mexico’s Secretariat of the Interior, the program is designed to help up to 6,000 migrants and will be supported through emergency funds destined for social emergencies. The program will be operated by Mexico’s Communications and Transportation Secretariat.
Ildefonso Ortiz is an award-winning journalist with Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Brandon Darby and Stephen K. Bannon.  You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook. He can be contacted at Iortiz@breitbart.com. 
Brandon Darby is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Breitbart Texas. He co-founded the Cartel Chronicles project with Ildefonso Ortiz and Stephen K. Bannon. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. He can be contacted at bdarby@breitbart.com.
Tony Aranda from the Cartel Chronicles project contributed to this report. 





With the midterm elections a mere two weeks away, it can be easy to forget that politics will continue as usual afterward.  So what will happen once the midterms have been held on November 6, 2018?
Much depends on which party wins the House of Representatives.  Republicans are virtually guaranteed to win the Senate, but the House could go either way at this point.  Not long ago, the House was considered an easy win for the Democrats.  However, the Kavanaugh hearings have woken many fence-sitting Republicans from their slumber, and now control of the House is less certain.
If Republicans keep the House, Trump will likely want to enact his immigration agenda.  He spent the last two years enacting legislation congressional Republicans wanted, and in return, he will want them to enact his legislation.  If they cooperate, the wall may begin construction with congressional funding sometime in 2019.  If they don't cooperate, Trump could retaliate by vetoing any bills Republicans in Congress pass.  He hasn't vetoed a single bill yet, but he will use that power if he has to.  If Congress still refuses to cooperate, Trump will take his case to the American people.  Most Republicans will side with Trump over Congress.  If Congress still refuses to fund the wall, Trump might use the military to build it.  Congressional Republicans may vote to fund the wall, not necessarily because they support it, but because they fear losing their jobs.  The Republican base is getting tired of its leaders not delivering on immigration, and if their leaders don't start delivering soon, the base will not vote for them.  A wall, complete or not, will boost Trump's chances of being re-elected in 2020.
Another item on the agenda would be tech censorship.  Tech companies have been censoring and will continue to censor the news to prevent "fake news" and "hate speech" from spreading.  Congress may pass the Social Media Anti-Censorship Act (SMACA), which would "prohibit censorship of lawful speech on major social media platforms."
A national voter ID law could be implemented, perhaps with the government issuing a national ID card to every citizen.  Though many claim that this would be racist, a majority of Americans of all races support voter ID laws.  An ID is required for many things.  Why should voting should be different?
What if Democrats take the House?  Democrats complained that Republicans in Congress wouldn't cooperate with Obama when he was president, but if Democrats regain the House, they will make the Obama era look like a golden age of bipartisanship.  Congressional funding for the wall won't happen under any circumstances.  There will be increased calls to abolish ICE.  Few if any laws will be passed.  This will benefit Trump and the Republicans, since they can place the blame for the gridlock on the Democrats.  Most importantly, House Democrats will attempt to impeach Trump on the charges of collusion, obstruction, and treason.  The Democratic leadership won't want impeachment because it will backfire, but its rabid base will force it to go ahead.
Trump will probably be impeached in the House, with every Democrat voting to impeach and every Republican voting against impeachment.  The Senate, also voting along purely partisan lines, will not vote to convict.  Such a spectacle will tear the country even farther apart than the 2016 election and the Kavanaugh hearings did.  The attempted impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were highly divisive and bitterly partisan affairs, and the attempted impeachment of Donald Trump would be even more so.  Trump-supporters will be enraged by the attempted impeachment, and the resulting backlash will carry Trump to the White House a second time in 2020.
No matter who wins the House, there will be more violence and harassment from the left.  Many Democrats have been calling for an end to civility – not just ordinary Democrats, but politicians.  Maxine Waters encouraged her supporters to harass members of the Cabinet.  Hillary Clinton said, "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for" and that civility can resume when Democrats retake Congress.
These words add fuel to an already raging fire.  Since Trump was inaugurated:
  • Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia.
  • Steve Bannon was harassed at a bookstore in Richmond, Virginia.
  • Ted Cruz was harassed at a restaurant.
  • White powder was sent to Ted Cruz.
  • Ricin was sent to Trump.
  • Mitch McConnell was harassed at a restaurant.
Not only have elected officials been harassed, but they have almost been killed.  Steve Scalise and five others were wounded while practicing for the annual congressional baseball game.  Rand Paul was attacked and wounded by a neighbor while mowing his lawn.  At this rate, its only a matter of time before someone is killed by a deranged leftist.  And these are just the politicians.  Countless Trump-supporters have been attacked and harassed, especially while wearing the red MAGA baseball cap.
The media are responsible for much of this.  They constantly demonize Trump and his supporters, portraying them as evil people who want to harm others.  There will be many who resort to harassment and violence.  And if someone does die, the media will shift the blame onto Trump, saying he created a "climate of hate" where something like this could happen.
And what will happen when Trump replaces a third Supreme Court justice?  Any new Supreme Court nominees are likely to be met with even more resistance than Kavanaugh was.  What happens if Ruth Bader Ginsburg resigns or passes away with Trump in office?  The left's reaction was bad enough when the president replaced two conservative justices; one can only imagine what their reaction will be when he replaces "the Notorious RBG." 
Farther along in the future, the 2020 election will be an even crazier version of the 2016 election.  Trump will likely win, because the anti-Trump movement has no clear leader, and there is no Democrat aside from Obama who can get Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents to the polls in large enough numbers to defeat Trump.  Even farther in the future, the 2024 Republican primaries will be a battle between establishment Republicans such as Nikki Haley and Mike Pence and populist Republicans such as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  But whomever Republicans nominate in 2024, he will probably lose.  Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a pattern where each president serves eight years and is then succeeded by someone from the opposing party for eight years: Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush, then Barack Obama, then Donald Trump for eight years, then a Democrat for eight years, and so on.
In 2024, the Democrats may nominate Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts.  Patrick is black, so he would get black voters to the polls in a way Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore could not.  Seeing how successful Obama was at winning elections, Democrats will try to recreate Obama's performance by nominating other minority candidates. 
Taking everything into account, the political situation in the United States will grow worse no matter which party wins the House this Election Day.  However, should Democrats gain a majority, the country will descend into chaos at a quicker pace, since they will open up investigation after investigation into the president that will hamper his ability to run the country.  A silver lining of Democrats winning the House is that they will continue to embarrass themselves and make President Trump look good in comparison.  But in order for the president to continue to enact his America First agenda, Republicans must retain control of the House of Representatives.
Thomas O'Malley can be contacted at thomasomalley861@yahoo.com.




Texas Democratic Party Leader Funded ‘Voter Fraud Ring,’ Says AG



Leticia-Sanchez
Leticia Sanchez
4:43

A North Texas woman recently indicted as part of a “voter fraud ring” paid the others involved in the scheme with funds provided by a Democratic Party leader, say court documents filed by the Office of Attorney General Ken Paxton this week.
Leticia Sanchez was charged with 17 felony counts of voter fraud following an investigation by Paxton’s office. Sanchez, 57, allegedly paid her co-defendants to target elderly voters in select northern Fort Worth precincts in the 2016 March Democrat Party primary election to affect the outcome of certain down-ballot candidate races.
The state’s newly filed notice of intent to introduce evidence in the Sanchez criminal case alleged that Stuart Clegg, then Tarrant County Democratic Party executive director, funded the alleged voter fraud ring’s criminal activities.
Breitbart obtained the court documents which stated that “after learning that state police investigators were in Tarrant County interviewing voters and members of her vote harvesting group,” Sanchez sent a text message to her daughter, Leticia Sanchez Tepichin, “conveying a message from Sanchez and Stuart Clegg” that the others involved in the ring should not cooperate with investigators. The message, written in Spanish, told Tepichin to “advise immediately” that a group of “malicious people” were investigating “our work” and “our boss Mr. Stuart.” She also advised them that a lawyer was in charge of the matter and they should tell the lawyer immediately if they are approached by anyone with questions.
Previously, Breitbart reported the AG’s Election Fraud Unit said the women carried out their the ruse by “seeding” or proliferating mail ballots to the targeted precincts through forged signatures, altering historical applications, and resubmitting them without the voter’s knowledge.
Sanchez was one of four women indicted on a cumulative 30 counts of voter fraud. Tepichin, 39, was indicted on nine counts of voter fraud; Maria Rosa Solis, 40, was charged on two counts for forging signatures on the mail-in ballots; and Laura Parra, 24, received one count of forgery.
The state’s notice also stated that Sanchez faxed the fraudulently obtained applications for mail-in ballots using the fax machine of then Fort Worth City Councilman Sal Espino. The court document did not name Espino of any wrongdoing in connection with the case.
The court documents then said that Sanchez and her cohorts collaborated on the voter fraud scheme between January 2015 and March 2016, intending to affect the outcome of the 2016 March Democratic Primary election in the unidentified down-ballot races.
Despite these serious voter fraud charges, Greg Westfall, one of two attorneys for Tepichin, insisted the state’s case was politically motivated and sought to suppress minority voting, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
“They are being used by people who want to justify voter ID,” said Westfall. “At the end of the day, there’s not going to be any fraud in this deal.”
The other lawyer Frank Sellers described the four women as “intelligent, educated women” who are church goers that have “never been in trouble a day in their lives,” work “multiple jobs to support their families” and are “good, helpful people.”
Still, one alleged victim, 76-year-old Minnie Barela, a blind Fort Worth woman, said otherwise when she told the Star-Telegram that Sanchez turned up at her door “very friendly,” indicating she had the “authority” to help Barela with her mail-in ballot. Barela said she did not suspect anything wrong initially until Barela said she disagreed with Sanchez, who allegedly marked Barela’s ballot without her consent.
“While purporting to ‘assist’ the voter in filling out her ballot, Sanchez distracted the voter by talking only about the presidential race, while marking votes for the down-ballot candidates Sanchez was paid to support, without the voter’s knowledge or consent,” stated the court documents which included Barela’s testimony among many other elderly individuals impacted by the mail-in ballot voter fraud.
Barela called what Sanchez did “wrong” and expressed frustration that the accused took advantage of her “knowing that I was blind.” She said: “I learned my lesson.” Barela noted she will have one of her daughters take her to vote in person next time.
The Texas Democratic Party also made news recently when the Public Interest Legal Foundation released a complaint to county and state officers regarding “altered” voter registration forms in the Rio Grande Valley that were directed to noncitizen residents. The applications featured pre-printed claims of U.S. citizenship. On Monday, the Texas Secretary of State referred the matter to Attorney General Paxton for further investigation.
Follow Merrill Hope, a member of the original Breitbart Texas team, on Twitter.


The Second Caravan Sealed the Democrats' Fate




The herald of middle-American radicalism, Samuel Francis, famously described America's two parties as the evil party and the stupid party.  Under our secular savior, Donald Trump, the political division in America is changing: there is no more stupid party, and the evil party is consuming itself.  Vilfredo Pareto's classification of political elites as "Foxes and Lions" – the quick and cunning versus the strong and stalwart – now largely describes our two parties.  The pure foxes among Republicans have mostly been silenced or have left the party; it now consists mainly of a protective pride of lions led by a dominant male more cunning than any fox.  The Democrats' elites consist almost exclusively of foxes, and they are beset by a spreading plague of rabies.
Just in time to drive this division home with a sledgehammer and a ten-inch nail, the border crisis has exploded into America's consciousness.
On the heels of the now 14,000-strong human wave set to flood across our southern border in the coming weeks is another human army – and then another, and likely many more.  Faced with the prospect of paying human-smugglers $5,000-$10,000 to transport them to the American border, poor residents of Central American countries have come to realize that mass migrations are safer and cheaper.  The invaders know they have allies on this side of our border.  Most Democrat lawmakers remain silent; they are not proposing a solution because they don't see the invasion as a problem – to them, it is a feature of our immigration laws, not a bug.  Racialism is the new creed and currency of the left, so anything that swells the numbers of minorities in the United States is assumed by Democrat leaders to be a net benefit to the Democratic Party.  With the advent of invading armies, the democrats could not be more mistaken.
First, notice what was not said as the army approached Mexico and Mexican authorities pledged to prevent it from entering their country.  Whether this was possible was an open question – but what was never questioned was the right of Mexico to stop them.  Every leftist in Congress and in corporate media silently affirmed the right of the Mexican government to stop the army.  The Democrats' immigration message is finally crystal-clear: other nations have a right to control their borders, but we do not, even in the face of foreign invasion.  That is a politically untenable position.
Second, as more invading armies get underway, regardless of the fate of the first one, questions will invariably be asked of the left – and every question undermines the Democratic Party.
- How many are too many?  There can be no real answer to that question from the left if the first massive army proceeds into the interior of the country.  The left has welcomed the first army; consistency demands that they apply the same standards to those that follow.  The Democrats have shown that they're bluffing.  To fold will admit their error, wound their pride, and compromise their racialist creed.
- Do Democrats really believe that all or even most of the invading migrants face political, ethnic, or religious persecution?  Those are the standards for asylum.  The army comes from a region where ethnicity and religion are essentially uniform; there is no Latin American version of the Hutus and Tutsis.  People fleeing economic depression and criminal violence are not eligible for asylum, yet Democrats welcome them all with open arms.
- Assuming that we decide to stop the tenth, or twentieth, or fiftieth army, is there any legal way to do so without physical resistance?  The Democrats' silence on this issue insures that our laws will be changed, and not in ways that will benefit their party.  The wall is the most obvious but hardly the limit of these changes; immigration based upon merit will be the final defeat of the Democratic Party's desire to replace the American population with a largely illiterate and dependent foreign underclass.  The Democrats will resist every change, but their support for the current invasion has cut their credibility off at the knees.
Third, the left and its corporate media allies have misjudged Latinos.  The left's childish and simplistic view of minorities leads leftists to believe that all Latinos think alike and are uniformly elated by anything that grows the sheer number of Latinos in the country.  There are radical elements in the Latino community who do think that way, and naturally, they are drawn to active participation in the racialist Democrat mob.  But most Latinos are like the rest of us: they are concerned about their families first and foremost.  It doesn't benefit Latinos – whether here legally or illegally – to have endless waves of people arriving from outside the country, willing to work for lower and lower wages.  Shrewd Latinos also recognize that the less legitimate foreign arrivals appear to be, the greater the chance that large-scale deportations will eventually occur.  Most Latinos do not desire a place on the Democrat welfare plantation and the destruction of the family unit which such a place requires.  Note that there is no European analogue for the word "machismo" – among the various races, only Latinos use and celebrate such a term, defined as "aggressive masculinity."  The Democrat plantation is the home of emasculation.
Having already set in motion plans to limit or eliminate foreign aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, President Trump has already done more to fight this foreign invasion than Obama did in eight years.  Should the migrant army simply keep walking when it meets resistance, that will not be the victory many Democrats seem to anticipate.  It will not demoralize the Republican base, which recognizes that short of military resistance and the public relations nightmare a military confrontation may produce, Trump's hands are largely tied by our current immigration laws.  Instead, the human wave will be the punctuation mark on the end of the sentence, "Build the wall."
Months ago, Trump offered to trade legitimacy for DACA recipients for the wall.  The Democrats refused, as Trump surely knew they would.  Instead, Democrats dug their greedy hands ever deeper into the immigration candy jar.  Before all is said and done, they'll curse their greedy hands and wish they'd opted for amputation.

Exclusive–Dave Brat: Democrats Favor Importing ‘Cheap Labor’ over Securing American Jobs for Veterans
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/24/exclusive-dave-brat-democrats-favor-importing-cheap-labor-over-securing-american-jobs-for-veterans/


Latino Construction Workers
RICHARDSPAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images
    157
2:51


Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) says Democrats favor importing cheap foreign labor to provide big business with low labor costs and readily available workers, rather than securing jobs for American veterans.

In an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Tonight, Brat told Breitbart News Senior Editors-at-Large, Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak Democrats, like his pro-amnesty opponent, Abigail Spanberger, are more concerned with providing cheap labor to the business lobby than job and wage growth for Americans.
Brat said:
That is what [Democrats] want to do. [Democrats] want to open the borders and bring in cheap labor for the cheap labor crowd and then that, of course, pushes down wage trades for American workers who can’t find jobs. And we’ve got 40 million people out of the workforce still, Americans, who we need to get into the economy.
The Trump economy is roaring right now and it’s a great opportunity to get our veterans all back in the labor force, all the kids that maybe didn’t want to go for the full college route maybe back into the labor force.
My opponent is way worse than that. [Abigail Spanberger] is open borders. [Emphasis added]
Listen to Brat’s full interview here:
As Breitbart News reported, Spanberger has endorsed amnesty for all 12 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. saying that the amnesty is necessary to “meet the needs of the employers,” a talking point often spouted by the pr0-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and Wall Street executives.
In a case of wage depression due to mass immigration, California’s construction industry saw once good wages in the 1980s suddenly decreased and flatlined due to massive amounts of illegal and low-skilled legal immigration to the region.
Blaine Taylor, a whistleblower, said the construction industry in California once offered a starting wage of about $45 an hour in the late 1980s. Fast-forward to 2018 — nearly two decades into when illegal aliens began flooding the industry — he now says that wages have fallen by more than half, standing at just $11 an hour.
A recent Harvard/Harris Poll revealed that nearly half of Americans now say illegal immigration crushes U.S. wages. About 73 percent of supporters of President Trump say illegal immigration reduces wages for Americans. Another nearly 60 percent of Americans living in rural regions of the country say illegal immigration reduces U.S. wages.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

The Second Caravan Sealed the Democrats' Fate




The herald of middle-American radicalism, Samuel Francis, famously described America's two parties as the evil party and the stupid party.  Under our secular savior, Donald Trump, the political division in America is changing: there is no more stupid party, and the evil party is consuming itself.  Vilfredo Pareto's classification of political elites as "Foxes and Lions" – the quick and cunning versus the strong and stalwart – now largely describes our two parties.  The pure foxes among Republicans have mostly been silenced or have left the party; it now consists mainly of a protective pride of lions led by a dominant male more cunning than any fox.  The Democrats' elites consist almost exclusively of foxes, and they are beset by a spreading plague of rabies.
Just in time to drive this division home with a sledgehammer and a ten-inch nail, the border crisis has exploded into America's consciousness.
On the heels of the now 14,000-strong human wave set to flood across our southern border in the coming weeks is another human army – and then another, and likely many more.  Faced with the prospect of paying human-smugglers $5,000-$10,000 to transport them to the American border, poor residents of Central American countries have come to realize that mass migrations are safer and cheaper.  The invaders know they have allies on this side of our border.  Most Democrat lawmakers remain silent; they are not proposing a solution because they don't see the invasion as a problem – to them, it is a feature of our immigration laws, not a bug.  Racialism is the new creed and currency of the left, so anything that swells the numbers of minorities in the United States is assumed by Democrat leaders to be a net benefit to the Democratic Party.  With the advent of invading armies, the democrats could not be more mistaken.
First, notice what was not said as the army approached Mexico and Mexican authorities pledged to prevent it from entering their country.  Whether this was possible was an open question – but what was never questioned was the right of Mexico to stop them.  Every leftist in Congress and in corporate media silently affirmed the right of the Mexican government to stop the army.  The Democrats' immigration message is finally crystal-clear: other nations have a right to control their borders, but we do not, even in the face of foreign invasion.  That is a politically untenable position.
Second, as more invading armies get underway, regardless of the fate of the first one, questions will invariably be asked of the left – and every question undermines the Democratic Party.
- How many are too many?  There can be no real answer to that question from the left if the first massive army proceeds into the interior of the country.  The left has welcomed the first army; consistency demands that they apply the same standards to those that follow.  The Democrats have shown that they're bluffing.  To fold will admit their error, wound their pride, and compromise their racialist creed.
- Do Democrats really believe that all or even most of the invading migrants face political, ethnic, or religious persecution?  Those are the standards for asylum.  The army comes from a region where ethnicity and religion are essentially uniform; there is no Latin American version of the Hutus and Tutsis.  People fleeing economic depression and criminal violence are not eligible for asylum, yet Democrats welcome them all with open arms.
- Assuming that we decide to stop the tenth, or twentieth, or fiftieth army, is there any legal way to do so without physical resistance?  The Democrats' silence on this issue insures that our laws will be changed, and not in ways that will benefit their party.  The wall is the most obvious but hardly the limit of these changes; immigration based upon merit will be the final defeat of the Democratic Party's desire to replace the American population with a largely illiterate and dependent foreign underclass.  The Democrats will resist every change, but their support for the current invasion has cut their credibility off at the knees.
Third, the left and its corporate media allies have misjudged Latinos.  The left's childish and simplistic view of minorities leads leftists to believe that all Latinos think alike and are uniformly elated by anything that grows the sheer number of Latinos in the country.  There are radical elements in the Latino community who do think that way, and naturally, they are drawn to active participation in the racialist Democrat mob.  But most Latinos are like the rest of us: they are concerned about their families first and foremost.  It doesn't benefit Latinos – whether here legally or illegally – to have endless waves of people arriving from outside the country, willing to work for lower and lower wages.  Shrewd Latinos also recognize that the less legitimate foreign arrivals appear to be, the greater the chance that large-scale deportations will eventually occur.  Most Latinos do not desire a place on the Democrat welfare plantation and the destruction of the family unit which such a place requires.  Note that there is no European analogue for the word "machismo" – among the various races, only Latinos use and celebrate such a term, defined as "aggressive masculinity."  The Democrat plantation is the home of emasculation.
Having already set in motion plans to limit or eliminate foreign aid to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, President Trump has already done more to fight this foreign invasion than Obama did in eight years.  Should the migrant army simply keep walking when it meets resistance, that will not be the victory many Democrats seem to anticipate.  It will not demoralize the Republican base, which recognizes that short of military resistance and the public relations nightmare a military confrontation may produce, Trump's hands are largely tied by our current immigration laws.  Instead, the human wave will be the punctuation mark on the end of the sentence, "Build the wall."
Months ago, Trump offered to trade legitimacy for DACA recipients for the wall.  The Democrats refused, as Trump surely knew they would.  Instead, Democrats dug their greedy hands ever deeper into the immigration candy jar.  Before all is said and done, they'll curse their greedy hands and wish they'd opted for amputation.

Gallup estimates that 147 million people around the globe want to migrate to the U.S., and of those, 37 million are from Latin America.

Invasion of the Country Snatchers
|
Posted: Oct 25, 2018 12:01 AM
  Share   Tweet
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
  
Is it more than coincidence that thousands of migrants from Central America are seeking to enter the United States illegally just two weeks before the midterm election? Who are these people? Who's paying for their transportation, food and expenses? Why doesn't the media find out? Is this migrant caravan a ploy by Democrats to win sympathy from Hispanic voters so they'll reverse their growing approval of Trump administration policies and vote against their interests?

One definition of invasion seems to fit what is transpiring at the southern border: "The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful."

President Trump's immediate response to the migrant march toward our border was to threaten to reduce, or cut off aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador if those countries do not do more to stem the human tide. That approach might work temporarily, but there remains a greater problem only Congress can solve.