July 19, 2016
The scourge of Islam
The article in the Atlantic last year, which argued that ISIS is not just Islamic but very Islamic, predictably created an uproar of indignation and accusations of fomenting Islamophobia from the usual suspects, from the NYT to the Huffington Post. By contrast, very little has been heard from the same quarters about the treatment of Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities in Iraq – mustn’t criticize Muslims for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities or – that ultimate crime against humanity –fomenting Islamophobia.
But let me leave aside these obvious bases for criticizing Islamic practice and even leave aside terrorist acts – from 9/11 to the Boston Bomber to Charlie Hebdo and now Nice. Instead, the case here will be argued just on the basis of the prevailing behavior and mindset of the young males of Europe’s new “immigrants.”
But let me leave aside these obvious bases for criticizing Islamic practice and even leave aside terrorist acts – from 9/11 to the Boston Bomber to Charlie Hebdo and now Nice. Instead, the case here will be argued just on the basis of the prevailing behavior and mindset of the young males of Europe’s new “immigrants.”
In one day alone, there were 1,200+ sexual assaults on German women by approximately 2,000 Muslim “immigrants.” Angela Merkel’s reaction? To cut a deal with Facebook and Twitter so that next time Muslims commit thousands of sexual assaults, it will be much harder for the populace to get the news out through the digital curtain of dot-com censorship and propaganda. And those fewer than 1% who do get “prosecuted”? The poor dears have just been miseducated and need courses in deportment and a gentle nudging into accepting the astounding concept that infidel women have feelings, sensibilities, and rights.
Miseducated?
There is no shortage of apologists for Islam who will insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit Koranic doctrine, which basically permits rape only of captive women taken in battle (Ar-Rahim), but, as Raymond Ibrahim points out, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims and to see women – especially infidel women – as little more than sex objects. (In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex, “Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.”)
But textual exegesis aside, as Jack Jenkins, senior religion reporter for ThinkProgress (gasp) maintained, it is a mistake (“fools errand”) to believe that a religion is defined solely by what is in its texts. “Religion is a community. Religion, whether it’s Islam or Christianity, whether it’s Hinduism, is a group of people that interpret things, whether that’s text, whether that’s different sorts of rituals and then move on from them.”
And that is the point.
Europe’s new immigrants who are convinced that infidel women are legitimate prey are the product of Islamic communities and the Muslim clerics who guide them. Islamic communities produce such creatures en masse, regardless of what Western apologists claim is the real Islam. The scholars may argue ’til they are blue in the face, but the fact is, there is enough there in Islamic holy books for clerics to indoctrinate and send their zombie rapists abroad to “propagate” the infidel sluts. They are not forthcoming under the aegis of any other religion. They are bred nowhere but in cultures and culture cells claiming the authority of Islam.
Miseducated?
There is no shortage of apologists for Islam who will insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit Koranic doctrine, which basically permits rape only of captive women taken in battle (Ar-Rahim), but, as Raymond Ibrahim points out, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims and to see women – especially infidel women – as little more than sex objects. (In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex, “Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.”)
But textual exegesis aside, as Jack Jenkins, senior religion reporter for ThinkProgress (gasp) maintained, it is a mistake (“fools errand”) to believe that a religion is defined solely by what is in its texts. “Religion is a community. Religion, whether it’s Islam or Christianity, whether it’s Hinduism, is a group of people that interpret things, whether that’s text, whether that’s different sorts of rituals and then move on from them.”
And that is the point.
Europe’s new immigrants who are convinced that infidel women are legitimate prey are the product of Islamic communities and the Muslim clerics who guide them. Islamic communities produce such creatures en masse, regardless of what Western apologists claim is the real Islam. The scholars may argue ’til they are blue in the face, but the fact is, there is enough there in Islamic holy books for clerics to indoctrinate and send their zombie rapists abroad to “propagate” the infidel sluts. They are not forthcoming under the aegis of any other religion. They are bred nowhere but in cultures and culture cells claiming the authority of Islam.
The article in the Atlantic last year, which argued that ISIS is not just Islamic but very Islamic, predictably created an uproar of indignation and accusations of fomenting Islamophobia from the usual suspects, from the NYT to the Huffington Post. By contrast, very little has been heard from the same quarters about the treatment of Yazidis, Christians, and other religious minorities in Iraq – mustn’t criticize Muslims for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities or – that ultimate crime against humanity –fomenting Islamophobia.
But let me leave aside these obvious bases for criticizing Islamic practice and even leave aside terrorist acts – from 9/11 to the Boston Bomber to Charlie Hebdo and now Nice. Instead, the case here will be argued just on the basis of the prevailing behavior and mindset of the young males of Europe’s new “immigrants.”
In one day alone, there were 1,200+ sexual assaults on German women by approximately 2,000 Muslim “immigrants.” Angela Merkel’s reaction? To cut a deal with Facebook and Twitter so that next time Muslims commit thousands of sexual assaults, it will be much harder for the populace to get the news out through the digital curtain of dot-com censorship and propaganda. And those fewer than 1% who do get “prosecuted”? The poor dears have just been miseducated and need courses in deportment and a gentle nudging into accepting the astounding concept that infidel women have feelings, sensibilities, and rights.
Miseducated?
There is no shortage of apologists for Islam who will insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit Koranic doctrine, which basically permits rape only of captive women taken in battle (Ar-Rahim), but, as Raymond Ibrahim points out, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims and to see women – especially infidel women – as little more than sex objects. (In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex, “Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.”)
But textual exegesis aside, as Jack Jenkins, senior religion reporter for ThinkProgress (gasp) maintained, it is a mistake (“fools errand”) to believe that a religion is defined solely by what is in its texts. “Religion is a community. Religion, whether it’s Islam or Christianity, whether it’s Hinduism, is a group of people that interpret things, whether that’s text, whether that’s different sorts of rituals and then move on from them.”
And that is the point.
Europe’s new immigrants who are convinced that infidel women are legitimate prey are the product of Islamic communities and the Muslim clerics who guide them. Islamic communities produce such creatures en masse, regardless of what Western apologists claim is the real Islam. The scholars may argue ’til they are blue in the face, but the fact is, there is enough there in Islamic holy books for clerics to indoctrinate and send their zombie rapists abroad to “propagate” the infidel sluts. They are not forthcoming under the aegis of any other religion. They are bred nowhere but in cultures and culture cells claiming the authority of Islam.
But let me leave aside these obvious bases for criticizing Islamic practice and even leave aside terrorist acts – from 9/11 to the Boston Bomber to Charlie Hebdo and now Nice. Instead, the case here will be argued just on the basis of the prevailing behavior and mindset of the young males of Europe’s new “immigrants.”
In one day alone, there were 1,200+ sexual assaults on German women by approximately 2,000 Muslim “immigrants.” Angela Merkel’s reaction? To cut a deal with Facebook and Twitter so that next time Muslims commit thousands of sexual assaults, it will be much harder for the populace to get the news out through the digital curtain of dot-com censorship and propaganda. And those fewer than 1% who do get “prosecuted”? The poor dears have just been miseducated and need courses in deportment and a gentle nudging into accepting the astounding concept that infidel women have feelings, sensibilities, and rights.
Miseducated?
There is no shortage of apologists for Islam who will insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit Koranic doctrine, which basically permits rape only of captive women taken in battle (Ar-Rahim), but, as Raymond Ibrahim points out, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims and to see women – especially infidel women – as little more than sex objects. (In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex, “Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.”)
But textual exegesis aside, as Jack Jenkins, senior religion reporter for ThinkProgress (gasp) maintained, it is a mistake (“fools errand”) to believe that a religion is defined solely by what is in its texts. “Religion is a community. Religion, whether it’s Islam or Christianity, whether it’s Hinduism, is a group of people that interpret things, whether that’s text, whether that’s different sorts of rituals and then move on from them.”
And that is the point.
Europe’s new immigrants who are convinced that infidel women are legitimate prey are the product of Islamic communities and the Muslim clerics who guide them. Islamic communities produce such creatures en masse, regardless of what Western apologists claim is the real Islam. The scholars may argue ’til they are blue in the face, but the fact is, there is enough there in Islamic holy books for clerics to indoctrinate and send their zombie rapists abroad to “propagate” the infidel sluts. They are not forthcoming under the aegis of any other religion. They are bred nowhere but in cultures and culture cells claiming the authority of Islam.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/the_scourge_of_islam.html#ixzz4EsPoogx1
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
uly 19, 2016
There can be no citizenship by fraud
If I come to your country and swear to obey its laws, when in fact I am totally dedicated to destroying you, my oath means nothing. It is a perjured oath. If I deceive you into believing my false oath, any legal citizenship that is granted under false pretenses is therefore null and void.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, Sharia-following Muslims cannot have any national loyalty. The two are explicitly contradictory.
If I come to your country and swear to obey its laws, when in fact I am totally dedicated to destroying you, my oath means nothing. It is a perjured oath. If I deceive you into believing my false oath, any legal citizenship that is granted under false pretenses is therefore null and void.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, Sharia-following Muslims cannot have any national loyalty. The two are explicitly contradictory.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, Sharia-following Muslims cannot have any national loyalty. The two are explicitly contradictory.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/there_can_be_no_citizenship_by_fraud.html#ixzz4EsNnVNws
ok
New Statistics: Immigration Enforcement
Continues Decline in 2016
Sharpest declines occurred in Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, and Atlanta field offices
WASHINGTON, DC (July 19, 2016) — The human cost of suppressing immigration enforcement was highlighted on the opening day of the Republican National Convention, featuring speeches by Americans whose family members were killed by illegal aliens. The latest ICE deportation statistics, the focus of a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies, give context to these stories: deportations have continued to decline in 2016, putting the country on pace to have the lowest number of deportations since 2006.Jessica Vaughan, the Center’s director of policy studies and author of the report, writes,
“These statistics reveal an alarming
deterioration in immigration enforcement. The
economic, social, and public safety
consequences of this surely will be a
lamentable legacy of the Obama
administration.”
Deportations of criminals have also continued to decline – more than 60 percent since 2011 - despite the Obama administration’s repeated claims to prioritize their removal. According to the Center’s report, “ICE internal metrics, including arrests, detainers and charging documents issued, show that enforcement in the interior has reached the lowest level of this administration. Most of ICE’s workload (72%) is still made up of cases referred from the Border Patrol rather than aliens arrested in the interior of the country.”
View the entire report at: http://cis.org/Immigration-Enforcement-Deportations-Decline-2016
The present administration’s deceptive practice of including hundreds of thousands of border cases in ICE deportation totals allowed President Obama to claim “record deportations” beginning in 2012, even as deportations from the interior decreased sharply.
The new statistics also show ICE’s continued failure to comply with the congressional detention mandate. In the current year to date, the ICE detention rate is 16 percent below capacity. Detention allows enforcement of removal orders and ensures that aliens who are charged with violations actually will show up in court. “Though space is available, ICE has released more than 86,000 criminal aliens from its custody since 2013, including more than 19,000 in 2015.”
Contact: Marguerite Telford
202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org
July 19, 2016
There can be no citizenship by fraud
If I come to your country and swear to obey its laws, when in fact I am totally dedicated to destroying you, my oath means nothing. It is a perjured oath. If I deceive you into believing my false oath, any legal citizenship that is granted under false pretenses is therefore null and void.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, Sharia-following Muslims cannot have any national loyalty. The two are explicitly contradictory.
If I come to your country and swear to obey its laws, when in fact I am totally dedicated to destroying you, my oath means nothing. It is a perjured oath. If I deceive you into believing my false oath, any legal citizenship that is granted under false pretenses is therefore null and void.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, Sharia-following Muslims cannot have any national loyalty. The two are explicitly contradictory.
U.S. citizenship is not an irreversible decision. We rarely take away citizenship, although there may be some cases from the 1950s. If it becomes necessary to require sharia-believing Muslims to make an open choice between one or the other, the United States would be well within normal legal bounds to withdraw both citizenship and U.S. residency.
As Newt Gingrich pointed out the other day, Sharia-following Muslims cannot have any national loyalty. The two are explicitly contradictory.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/there_can_be_no_citizenship_by_fraud.html#ixzz4EsNnVNws
ok
July 18, 2016
Obama’s Divide-and-Rule Presidency
The president is near the end of an eight year train wreck presidency, the result of which is that every social issue is more divisive, more unsolvable, and more dishonestly framed than ever before. It is no secret that he has done nothing for the black community, whose unemployment and crime rates are rising every day, while he demonizes police and lauds racist activists who condone assassination and lawlessness. Hillary Clinton has promised to be Barack Obama in a pantsuit, which means the downward trend will continue as the Democrat practice of “Promise Everything, Deliver Nothing, Blame Others” goes on in perpetuity.
The black community allows itself to be played this way each and every election cycle, and reliably elects progressive politicians who care more about the profitability of corruption than about their lives or hardships. Indeed, we know that the majority of these individuals live in Democrat controlled cities and states, where Democrat policies ensure that nothing changes for the better, but will often change for the worse if given minimal time. Somehow, the dots remain unconnected. Nevertheless, the party can’t afford to allow the black community to consider other options, including the message of success and advancement via the content of one’s character and work ethic. The party motto ought to be “Strength Through Failure”.
The black community allows itself to be played this way each and every election cycle, and reliably elects progressive politicians who care more about the profitability of corruption than about their lives or hardships. Indeed, we know that the majority of these individuals live in Democrat controlled cities and states, where Democrat policies ensure that nothing changes for the better, but will often change for the worse if given minimal time. Somehow, the dots remain unconnected. Nevertheless, the party can’t afford to allow the black community to consider other options, including the message of success and advancement via the content of one’s character and work ethic. The party motto ought to be “Strength Through Failure”.
Thankfully for the Democrats, there are groups like Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panthers, and every organization that preaches Black Liberation Theory or Theology. Trinity United Church comes to mind, but the Dallas racist didn’t need a church when he had so many other pan-African hate groups to follow. History tells us that nothing stirs the supposedly big hearts and closed minds of leftists like race-based radical hate groups.
It is no longer chic for the party to support the old Klan, which was entirely peopled by Democrats in its heyday, and was used as an enforcement tool by the local Democrats to keep people in their predetermined social places. Fortunately for the Democrats, there is a new Klan on the block: Black Lives Matter. It’s still populated by Democrats and is still prepared to use violence and assassination to keep people in their social slots. Ironically, the old Klan and the new Klan are both devices to keep blacks in their predetermined places, just exactly where the Democrat party wants them. The self-inflicted damage being done to the image of black Americans by this group is incalculable, and is ensuring that restoring trust is now generations away, if it happens at all. It is not lost on whites that there is racial hatred toward them for merely existing, hardly a starting point for dialogue. Lies and hatred don’t presage a healing process.
In a country of 340 Million people, we periodically see stories on the news about a police shooting, sometimes a couple within a short period, usually of a suspect who we end up finding out was far from random, far from peaceful, and far from innocent. Of course, we don’t find that out until well after the left has framed the narrative with lies about the reasons for the confrontation or the risks to the police. Given the extent to which such events, as unfortunate as they are when erroneous, serve the left’s agenda it is safe to conclude that we would hear about more of them if there were more of them. That so much is made of the ones that do occur is testament to the fact that they are not a daily occurrence, as the progressives would have us believe. If such events were as common as they claim, we would hear about them every day, all day, non-stop, and there would be in inexhaustible supply of them.
Needless to say, we already know that. We all live in the same country as the propagandists. If they had evidence of rampant and systemic murder by police, they would do anything to publish it. When such evidence does not exist, however, it becomes necessary to lie. This is a tactic of other leftist special interest groups, as well. There are countless stories of activists for gay rights, or women’s rights, or race frauds, who fabricate stories of abuse, violence, gang rape, etc. because there are so few truthful examples of these events occurring in a country the activists hate for the bigotry it continually fails to demonstrate. Sometimes it’s a Tawanna Brawley scam, other times a slur on a cake from Whole Foods, and yet other times it’s college gang rapes that never happened. If the systemic hatred and violence was so common, the elaborate frauds would be needless overkill.
So, here we go again. An election is coming up, and the Democrats can’t afford for their minority captives to stray. What better way to ensure allegiance than to fabricate a false narrative of wholesale murder, support it with infuriating lies and half-truths that will eventually be dispelled too late to make a difference, and step back while the inevitable violence escalates? The president can claim to support police because he mouths words to that effect, while actually throwing his entire support behind the radicals, whose leaders he entertains at the White House, and whose actions he enables by faulting the police for his loyalists’ violence and murder. He can claim to have the cops’ backs, while elevating Al Sharpton, and holding planning conferences with professional agitators, protestors and anarchists, as he has done throughout his presidency, whether during the “Occupy” phase, or the Ferguson phase, or now.
Of course, those emotional votes are paid for with the innocent lives of Honest to God American patriots. The president is coldly unconcerned that the upheaval and violence he condones brings with it the loss of selfless American men and women who do more in one day to serve their country and the president’s voters than this president has done in his entire life. They risk their lives, and their families’ futures, while the president risks being exposed as nothing more than the radical community organizer and race profiteer he never stopped being. If the president did nothing for a day, the world would be a better place. If the police did nothing for a day, it would take years to catalogue all the crimes that would be done by those who will vote for the Democrat party candidates this fall. At the hands of this president’s voters, more police will die to irreparably change America. It is a price the president is prepared to have others pay.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/obamas_divideandrule_presidency.html#ixzz4EnLVSqk3
No comments:
Post a Comment