A Mosque in France has been shuttered for six months after authorities accused it of ‘inciting hatred’ and ‘advocating jihad’.
And we would be spending hundreds of millions on social welfare to stop “radicalization”.
Here's What Makes Modernizing Afghanistan Impossible
The current difficulties in Afghanistan have structural causes that are more serious than cyclical ones such as sanctions. The recent measures taken by the United Nations at the suggestion of the Biden administration may not be enough for a country that has been dependent on foreign aid for decades.
Since the Taliban took control of Kabul last August, their regime has reduced the already limited freedoms available to Afghan citizens. On December 26, the Taliban's Ministry of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice declared that women could not travel more than 45 miles without being accompanied by a male relative. Along with the restrictions, the state of the economy, which was already very bad despite international aid, has worsened, especially because Washington has frozen nearly $9.5 billion from the Afghan Central Bank and the World Bank has suspended aid.
On December 22, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution proposed by the United States to facilitate humanitarian aid in a country where food prices have risen sharply. Two weeks earlier, the World Bank had announced $280 million in humanitarian aid to be disbursed by UNICEF and the World Food Programme to Afghanistan.
This collapse is due to more than the sanctions. The causes are fundamental and linked to a social organization and a culture that have made it difficult to truly modernize Afghanistan's structures for decades. In fact, the country has never been able to develop without international aid since the Second World War. These structural and cultural problems have partly made the victory of the Taliban possible. The country's history during the 20th century and its mentality should have made Westerners very cautious.
A Pew Research Center poll published on April 30, 2013 revealed that 79 percent of Afghans believed that those who left Islam should be killed in application of sharia, the Islamic law, and that 61 percent of the population believed that all inhabitants should be subject to sharia. These figures show the illusion of building a modern democracy on the Western model, where the rights of religious minorities are recognized.
In March 2015, a mob lynched Farkhunda Malikzhada, an Islamic studies graduate, because people were falsely convinced she had burned the Quran. The mob hit her with sticks and stones while shouting anti-American and anti-democracy slogans, and then a car ran over her. When the police tried to evacuate her, she refused on the grounds that a female police officer had to accompany her.
An ABC News poll released on December 7, 2005 showed that only 42 percent of residents strongly supported a woman working outside the home, and 38 percent supported a woman working in government. Less than half of the women strongly supported it.
This worldview was dominant outside the capital. The photo from 1972 of three women in miniskirts in Kabul is a gross misrepresentation of reality, as explained by the Swiss photographer Laurence Brun, who took it: "They could get acid on their legs." Donald Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, lobbied the then-president with this picture to convince him that Afghanistan could become a modern country again. In reality, few women were not veiled in the capital, and even fewer in the rest of the country. Before the Taliban regime, Commander Massoud's wife did not wear the veil in Kabul, but she wore it when she was in Panjshir province. And although women could vote since 1964, in reality, they were dominated by men.
History shows that building a strong Afghan state based on the Western model is impossible. Secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld relied on warlords for ground combat. However, James Dobbins, who served as acting United States ambassador to Afghanistan, has pointed out that Donald Rumsfeld opposed nation-building and the expansion of the international force, unlike secretary of state Colin Powell, whose position finally prevailed.
Because Afghanistan is not a nation-state, but a country with multiple ethnic groups and ethnicities split into localities that sometimes matter more than ethnicity, President Hamid Karzai ruled through corruption and nepotism. This system of government has prevented the modernization of the country, despite the $145 billion spent by the USA to build a strong and self-sustaining economy and state.
Aid from 60 other countries has been similarly unsuccessful, in part because of a lack of coordination, especially in urban reconstruction.
The Afghanistan papers of the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction revealed two years ago the difference between the reality and the public statements of politicians. While officially talking about progress, they privately recognized motivation problems of Afghan security forces, corruption, and misuse of American money by Afghan commanders. Corruption already existed when the Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban before 2001, when warlords levied illegal taxes. Moreover, the Northern Alliance refined opium into heroin before overthrowing the Taliban.
No unity, no Western modernity despite more than 60 years of aid
History has shown the difficulties of modernizing Afghanistan. King Amanullah Khan had tried to reform it, to give rights to women, before he had to flee in 1929.
Between 1953 and 1963, Washington and Moscow offered economic and military assistance to Afghanistan at the request of Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud Khan. The U.S. provided 30% of the aid to the country between 1950 and 1970, the USSR 50% during this period. Daoud believed that without rapid growth, Afghanistan would become severely politically fragmented.
From 1950 to 1970, the USSR invested $638 million (donations and credits) in the country, the United States gave $406 million, and the others gave $148 million. Americans built Kandahar International Airport. In 1970, the businessman Abdul Majid Zabuli denounced in the Afghan press "the anarchy, indiscipline and weakness of the administration." In 1979, after the assassination of the pro-USSR president, Nur Muhammad Taraki, the Red Army invaded the country, but could not rely on the Afghan forces it had equipped. Forty percent of the Afghan soldiers had deserted within a few days after the Marxist coup in 1978 — similar to last summer.
Between 1992 and 1996, after the defeat of the USSR, the warlords in Kabul were unable to get along with each other, and the capital became a theater of war. Commander Massoud, who had been able to unite them militarily against the Soviets, could not unite them politically. This is how the Taliban defeated them in 1996.
The president of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, points out that unlike Germany or Japan, which were rebuilt after a long war that brought them down, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were short, and these populations did not accept foreign orders, for they were not so badly affected, in contrast to the countries defeated in World War II. Moreover, he notes, "Afghans and Iraqis intensely reject rule by non-Muslims, an attitude embedded in the very nature of Islam, the most political of religions."
The first problem is probably the impossibility of understanding Afghanistan with a Western vision. In the same way that trust in a multicultural society is a prominent issue, perhaps the West should have looked first at cultural differences with Afghanistan and not have believed that money would be enough.
French Mosque Forced Closed for ‘Inciting Hatred’ and ‘Advocating Jihad’
A Mosque in France has been shuttered for six months after authorities accused it of ‘inciting hatred’ and ‘advocating jihad’.
The great mosque of Beauvais has been ordered to close for six months over sermons that authorities claim were ‘inciting hatred’, ‘violence’ and ‘advocating jihad’.
The order, announced on Tuesday, is to become enforceable after 48hrs, though the lawyer for the mosque was said to be seeking interim relief against the order.
According to a report by Le Monde, French Minister for the Interior Gérald Darmanin first announced that measures were being taken to close the mosque on December 14th.
“We have initiated the closure of the Beauvais mosque, [which is] completely unacceptable, which fights Christians, homosexuals and Jews,” Darmanin said.
This is far from the first time France has shut a mosque over its preaching, with a number being closed last October over their teachings.
While the lawyer for the Beauvais mosque, Samim Bolaky, admitted that “certain remarks” were made by one imam, he claims that the preacher in question has since been suspended, and that the mosque has “always fought terrorism” and “has always favoured living together”.
“It is a respectable mosque,” Bolaky went on to say.
The reportedly suspended imam is accused of promoting jihad as a “duty”, as well as defending “a rigorous and radical practice of Islam and the superiority of religious rules over those of positive law with regard to which he legitimizes disobedience”, according to Le Monde‘s report.
Ultimately, the preacher supposedly advocated for Muslims to “break with the Republic” and to go “so far as to set up non-Muslims as enemies”.
According to the paper, he has also been accused of calling for “hatred” and “discrimination against certain categories of people, such as Jews, Christians, or homosexuals”.
The order to close the mosque comes as a number of French Muslim groups have agreed to sign on to a new government charter, and by extension commit to shirking foreign influence and political Islam within the country.
Three Islamic federations have agreed to sign on to the “Charter of Principles of Islam of France”, after resisting doing so for at least a year.
The document is part of President Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to reform Islam within France, a goal Macron has spoken of since 2018.
Some groups however had previously taken issues with some terminology within the document, such as “Islam of France”, as well as with “extremely problematic” definitions of political Islam, which some worry will criminalise “religious practices that are part of the common foundation of Islam and which are guaranteed by the Constitution”.
Meanwhile, a fourth group — the French Council of Muslim Worship (CFCM) — which refused to sign up to the charter, has been declared “dead” by French authorities.
“Today the CFCM, that is to say, the representation of consular Islam – Moroccans, Algerians – is dead. The CFCM, for the public authorities, for the French Republic, no longer exists, is no longer the interlocutor of the Republic,” Interior Minister Darmanin said.
These staggering numbers reveal the massive speed with which Islamic colonization takes place, fueled by birth rates and then religious violence, but even with the high birth rates within Islam in general and in Afghanistan in particular, the Fort McCoy numbers are still too high.
House of Representatives Votes to Eradicate Blasphemy Against Islam
The House of Representatives has passed a bill which seeks to eradicate blasphemy against Islam. The bill, H.R. 5665, is truly remarkable as it amounts to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of Islam and reducing the United States government into a tool of the world’s ayatollahs.
The actual text of the bill not only seeks to eradicate blasphemy against Islam around the world – and solely against Islam at that – but even requires the federal government to reorganize some portions of the State Department along the lines of an Islamic religious institution which will be responsible for interpreting the Quran. For example, the text of the bill mandates that “[t]he Secretary of State shall establish within the Department of State an Office” and the “purpose” of the office is described as “[m]onitoring and combating acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement that occur in foreign countries.” That is, the State Department is required to create an office which is a cross between George Orwell’s Big Brother and the Taliban.
The word ‘combat’ in the text of the law is problematic but fits in perfectly with the concept of waging violent jihad against the countries deemed to have committed blasphemy against Islam. Almost every dictionary defines the word primarily as an action pertaining to war. While the internet firm Google’s dictionary defines 'combat’ as “fighting between armed forces,” Cambridge Dictionary defines the word as “a fight, especially during a war.” According to Collins Dictionary, “combat is fighting that takes place in a war.” This is no hyperbole as the State Department has a long history of supporting Islamic terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the ISIS. Former Assistant Secretary of State, Robin Raphel, ran her office as though it were an outpost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and she lost her security clearance when she was investigated for counterintelligence activities. Little wonder then that Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, used the term “Rogue State Department” and President Donald Trump described the State Department as the “Deep State Department.”
The blasphemy law further requires the newly created office to be headed by a person appointed by the “President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” and the person to be responsible for the “assessment and description of the nature and extent of acts of Islamophobia and Islamophobic incitement” and for determining if any utterances constitute “instances of propaganda” or “promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people.” Since the word ‘Islamophobia’ is not defined in the text of the legislation and words such as ‘hatred’ and ‘propaganda’ are subjective, the head of the newly created office will be ultimately responsible for interpreting the Quran and issuing legal opinions on whether statements made around the world amount to hatred or anti-Islamic propaganda under such interpretation.
In Islam, the person who interprets the Quran and issues legal opinions or edicts in the manner described by the new law is the Grand Mufti, and the opinions and edicts themselves are known as fatwas. Many of us are old enough to recall one of the most spine-chilling and famous fatwas issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against the author Salman Rushdie for committing blasphemy against Islam by writing his book, The Satanic Verses. Just as in the case of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Grand Mufti of the State Department too will have unlimited powers without any checks and balances, and neither the authority of the Mufti nor any fatwa issued by him can ever be challenged in a court of law. This is because the State Department’s opinions will be part of an annual report that is mandated by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 which “prohibits judicial review” of “agency actions taken under this Act.”
That kind of unlimited power might appear unconstitutional just as the blasphemy law along with its requirement that the State Department police the world and provide Halal certificates for free speech may appear unconstitutional, but those objections would not matter to dishonest judges. The courts most likely would rule that anyone who has filed a lawsuit challenging this law lacks standing as the law applies only to those outside the country and the person filing the lawsuit has not faced any injury. Therefore, even if the entire federal government were transformed into one big Islamic outfit with the sole purpose of using American resources to propagate Islam, American citizens can do nothing about it.
The entire purpose of the law, then, is to use the resources of the US government to arm-twist every other country into becoming a Sharia-compliant state. Ironically, the State Department would be responsible for squelching the freedom of expression in other countries and then publishing reports which complain about the lack of the freedom of expression in those same countries!
The blasphemy bill came into existence when it was sponsored by the Somalia-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (to be fair to her, she is most likely nothing more than a pawn of the State Department who did what she was told) after the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan (who sparked off the deadly Islamic riots in multiple countries in 2005 by accusing the US of flushing the Quran down the toilet in Guantanamo Bay) demanded that the US and other western nations pass such a law to protect the medieval-era barbarism perpetrated by Islamic countries from scrutiny and criticism. This of course makes perfect sense because both Somalia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are shining examples of countries that can teach the world about liberty, democracy, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. After all, according to the Pakistani Constitution, “In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful… the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed.”
The Pakistani Constitution goes on to inform us that “Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan” (Article 2), that “there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam” (Article 19), that “the State shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory” (Article 31-2), and that the qualifications to be a member of the Parliament require a person to be someone who follows the “Islamic injunction” and who “has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins” (Article 62). There is also a section on the “Federal Shariat Court.” And so it goes. On and on about Islam, the Quran, Sunnah, the Prophet, Allah, Mullah, Ulema, mosques, Arabic language and many such topics that would be of great interest to the Taliban-type people.
For its part, the Somali Constitution states that “Islam is the religion of the State” (Article 2-1), “no religion other than Islam can be propagated in the country” (Article 2-2), “no law which is not compliant with the general principles of Shari'ah can be enacted” (Article 2-3), and “the teaching of Islam shall be compulsory for pupils in both public and private schools (Article 30-8). Strangely, Ilhan Omar herself would have been punished in Somalia for her adultery by being stoned to death as the country follows the Islamic law on this matter, but she now pushes for the advancement of Islam in America.
A simple way to enhance the reputation of Islam would be to stop beheading people, murdering women by throwing rocks at them, sending out throat-cutters and homicide bombers to kill the infidels, converting children into improvised explosive devices, and indulging in ridiculous actions such as getting beard-inspectors to run around measuring the lengths of beards of men in order to terrorize them into conforming with the Quran. Instead of taking steps to reform the Islamic world, Ilhan Omar and the supporters of this new law want the world to endorse and embrace all the cruel actions of the Islamic countries. However, by pushing for this law and appealing to America to save the reputation of Islam, they have inadvertently ended up implying another message – that Allah is unable to save the reputation of Islam and America is a greater power than Allah.
Photo credit: Amy M. Lovgren US National Archives
DESTROYING AMERICA ONE ILLEGAL AT A TIME. THAT IS THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT'S DOCTRINE FOR 'CHEAP' LABOR
Democrats Want to Turn Afghanistan Into America’s Palestine
“It is the duty of the world, especially the US...to come and rebuild the Afghan economy.”
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center specializing in investigative reporting on the Left and Islamic terrorism.
The Biden administration could pull the troops out of Afghanistan, but the actual withdrawal will never end. After bringing over some 50,000 Afghan evacuees, most of whom had no visas, there are another estimated 62,000 Afghans waiting on visas to come to America.
That’s over 110,000 Afghan immigrants coming to America and we’re just getting started.
In July, I wrote an article headlined, "'Saving Afghan Interpreters' is a Scam That Would Bring 100,000 Afghans to U.S." We’re already on track to break the 100,000 barrier in 2022.
But even as Biden is rushing every Afghan he can find to America, taxpayers are sending $144 million in “humanitarian aid” to Afghanistan so the Taliban don’t have to divert any of the money they gain from the opium trade and taxing our “humanitarian aid” to caring for their own people.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai of the Taliban recently asserted that, “It is the duty of the world, especially the US... to come and rebuild the Afghan economy."
The Taliban control the country, but they want us to still keep on pumping billions into it.
The Jihadists are cheerfully duplicating the same arrangement that Hamas has in Gaza or the Houthis have in Yemen in which they get to focus on fighting us while we take care of their people. The terrorists get the geopolitical and financial benefits of controlling a country while Americans get to do the hard work of providing basic services to the people trying to kill us.
But if the Democrats have their way, Afghanistan will indeed become America’s Palestine.
A recent congressional letter to the Biden administration signed by Rep. Adam Schiff, Rep. Karen Bass, Rep. Ted Lieu, and Rep. Joaquin Castro, among others, proposes using Afghan assets held by the U.S. to fund Afghan schools and "hold the Taliban-led government to their commitment to allow girls and young women to attend secondary school nationwide."
Then the Biden administration "should assist multilateral organizations attempting to pay Afghan civil servants" which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the bureaucracy of a terrorist state.
Finally, "the Biden administration should allow international financial institutions to inject the necessary economic capital into Afghanistan to stave off the worst of its economic meltdown" and "facilitate dollar auctions" through an Afghan bank.
If these measures were actually implemented, the United States would still be funding and running much of Afghanistan’s economic and public service infrastructure remotely even while the Taliban actually control the country. The best way to describe the insane proposition is to say that it would turn Afghanistan into America’s very own private little “Palestine”.
Like the PLO and Hamas, the Taliban would have their own territory and would focus on terrorism, while the international community, led by the United States would fund their schools, run their official economy, and provide most social services through the UN and various NGOs.
Afghanistan would literally become our very own Gaza. The Taliban would function as the Palestinian Authority, the “moderate” terrorists we deal with, while ISIS-K would play the role of Hamas, the “extremist” terrorists we want to stop by giving money to the “moderate” terrorists.
And we would be spending hundreds of millions on social welfare to stop “radicalization”.
That may be exactly what the Taliban want. The Jihadists would get the best of both worlds. There would be an “inclusive” front government” made up of the few factions tolerated by the Taliban, including even a few women in burkas, with experience in navigating NGO slang.
They would tell the State Department whatever it wants to hear about educating girls, religious tolerance, and democracy, as long as we keep sending them hundreds of millions of dollars.
Meanwhile a Taliban shadow government would actually run things to their own liking, taking credit for all the social services and humanitarian aid provided by the United States while finding new ways to profit from it the way that it did back when the Taliban were an insurgency.
The congressional proposal is full of promises that the money won’t fall into the hands of the Taliban. Insisting that you can pay Afghan civil servants, fund schools, and inject massive amounts of capital into the country without any of it falling into the hands of the government is a dumb lie. The Taliban had an extensive taxation infrastructure which extracted money from the UN even when it was a terrorist insurgency, the idea that it won’t see any money from aid, salaries, and economic development capital when it’s in charge is entirely impossible.
But, as with the PLO and Hamas, the game here is plausible deniability for funding terrorists.
Democrats (and some Republicans) want to turn Afghanistan into another Palestine, a broken society run by terrorists, in a permanent state of humanitarian crisis that we are personally responsible for. Withdrawing from Afghanistan was not about actually getting out of the country, but letting the Taliban take over so that America is on the hook financially, but with no control.
Every year, we’ll hear about the coming famine in Afghanistan and we’ll chip in another few hundred million to feed the people while the Taliban builds its war chest. Just as Biden is doing this year. Americans will still fund Afghanistan’s government, but it will answer to the Taliban. Americans will fund Afghanistan’s schools, but they’ll teach Jihad and hatred of America.
And every time there’s a problem in Afghanistan, it’ll be our fault for not giving them enough.
Meanwhile, Islamic terrorists will set up shop in Afghanistan and stage attacks against America. The Taliban will, as they did with the Kabul airport bombing that killed 13 of our service members, disavow responsibility and then claim that people are joining ISIS-K because we haven’t sent them enough “humanitarian aid” to spend on social services for the terrorists.
And then Afghanistan really will be our own Palestine.
Withdrawing from Afghanistan was supposed to recalculate our national interests, instead it’s sucking us deeper into the Afghan swamp. It’s time to step back and think about what we want, not for Afghanistan, but for ourselves.
“No one benefits from a failed state in Afghanistan,” the congressional letter falsely claims.
That’s not true.
The Taliban’s failure is good for America. Afghanistan will always be a hellhole beloved by Islamic terrorists, and its people will always want to come to America and Europe. No amount of money we spend on aid will change that. If two decades and trillions spent on Afghanistan have taught us nothing else, they should have taught us the folly of trying to change this basic reality.
It’s in America’s national interest for the Taliban, who aside from being our enemies, are also the catspaws of Pakistan and Communist China, to fail as much as possible and to be diverted from anything other than trying to maintain their grip on Afghanistan. The worse things get in Afghanistan, the more Afghans will do what they should have done all along and oppose them.
American aid helps the Taliban even if it does nothing more than relieve the inevitable misery.
The last thing we should be doing is helping the Taliban hold on to power and discouraging opposition to their regime by making life comfortable for the Afghans who welcomed their rule. What we should do to the Taliban is exactly what we did to Soviet allies during the Cold War by undermining them at every turn. Instead we’re subsidizing Al Qaeda and China’s allies.
And if the Democrats have their way, America will be permanently tethered to Afghanistan. The forever war will become a forever administration in which we will fund the Taliban’s schools, pay their bureaucrats, and feed and care for their people for generations with no end in sight.
If not forever.
Biden sacrificed 13 American lives, abandoned Americans behind enemy lines, and allowed the Taliban to humiliate us in front of the world in order to withdraw from Afghanistan. Let’s make that botched withdrawal count and actually withdraw financially and politically from Afghanistan.
As Many as 1 in 3 Afghan Refugee Women at U.S. Bases are Pregnant
Despite the denials, statistics make the existence of child brides obvious.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
When Biden's Afghanistan retreat first brought tens of thousands of Afghans to the United States without any visas or vetting, officials at Fort McCoy warned about numerous incidents of Afghan child brides. Democrats and senior military officials have denied these allegations, but shocking new statistics out of Fort McCoy raise new questions of just how pervasive this is.
When thousands of Afghans first arrived at the military base in rural Wisconsin, local residents in Sparta, the “Bicycling Capital of America”, a small city of less than 10,000, began warning that the Afghans being housed at Fort McCoy were putting a significant strain on their infrastructure and their medical services. I was told that there were as many as 800 pregnant refugees at the base. The number seemed wildly implausible, but now the official number is out.
According to military officials, there have been 500 pregnant Afghans at Fort McCoy and, according to a local news report, “the numbers keep growing”.
“I am so happy that my son was born as a US citizen,” one Afghan evacuee declared.
Considering that there were only 12,600 Afghans on the base, down to about 7,000 now, these numbers are staggering. According to the Pentagon, only 22% of Afghan evacuees across all the bases are adult women. Around half of the evacuees are children. Assuming that these numbers hold true for Fort McCoy, that would mean that it housed only 2,772 adult women.
As the number of Afghan evacuees fell to around 7,000, most recently, the number of adult women would have averaged around 1,500. Even as its highest population mark, that would mean that 1 in 5 Afghan women were pregnant, while as its current number it would be 1 in 3.
All of that within a five month period.
In all of Wisconsin, a state of nearly 6 million people, there were only 60,615 births last year. 1.6% of the adult women in the state had a baby in one year, but between 18% to 33% of the Afghan women at Fort McCoy were pregnant during their time there.
These staggering numbers reveal the massive speed with which Islamic colonization takes place, fueled by birth rates and then religious violence, but even with the high birth rates within Islam in general and in Afghanistan in particular, the Fort McCoy numbers are still too high.
At 4.32 children per woman (as opposed to the American birth rate of 1.70), the Afghan birth rate is high, but 1 in 5 Afghan women (let alone 1 in 3) are still not pregnant at any given time. Some of the Afghan female refugees must be older which narrows down the population further. The only way to account for such a high pregnancy rate is by factoring in the underage girls.
Shortly before September, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Mark Pocan and other Democrats toured Fort McCoy and falsely claimed that the evacuees were being reliably vetted and screened.
"There are no cases in Fort McCoy right now with a child, 15 or under, who is married," Senator Baldwin insisted. The careful wording by the former lawyer leaves plenty of room for loopholes. It does not address the question of whether there are any pregnant children, 15 or under. And it doesn’t even touch on how many 16 and 17-year-olds are pregnant. And, since many of the Afghan evacuees had no documentation, there’s no way to know if any of those 16-year-olds are actually 15, 14, or even 13, despite how old the men trafficking them claim that they are.
Why else did the State Department demand "urgent guidance" after “intake staff at Fort McCoy reported multiple cases of minor females who presented as ‘married’ to adult Afghan men, as well as polygamous families?” Afghanistan has a 57% child marriage rate. Senator Baldwin and the Democrats expect us to believe that what the media is now describing as the “baby boom” is entirely due to 500 women, out of 1,500 to 2,700, all somehow being pregnant at Fort McCoy.
The only way to make sense of these numbers is to include many of the underage girls.
But why are so many Afghan women and girls at Fort McCoy pregnant? Obviously having a baby on American soil solidifies their legal status and provides them with assorted benefits. Demographic colonization of infidel nations through reproduction is also considered a form of Jihad. But for the men who bought and sold young girls for the trip, impregnating them is also a way to control them. It will be a lot harder for those girls to get away once they have a baby.
State Department personnel asked for guidance and the Biden administration began a coverup.
The media reporting on the “baby boom” at Fort McCoy state that the “base is partnering with local hospitals for deliveries”. Locals have long complained about the enormous demands that the Afghans at Fort McCoy are placing on local hospitals and medical personnel. For the first time we’re getting a small sense of just how enormous that demand really is.
In all of Monroe County, there were only 534 births in 2017. The Afghan migrants are set to equal all of the American births in a county with a population of three-quarters of a million.
When 12,500 Afghans can outnumber 741,770 Americans, what will happen when over 100,000 Afghans are brought to America? After Biden brought 53,000 Afghans to America, another 60,000 are waiting on visas in Afghanistan. That’s 113,000 Afghans and it’s just the beginning.
At a time when hospitals are already under strain and there are shortages of medical personnel, Biden’s decision to dump over 12,000 Afghans into rural Wisconsin has proven to be catastrophic. Gundersen Health Systems, one of whose hospitals has been used to deliver Afghan babies, has claimed that it's near capacity with COVID patients. Could Americans lose their lives because of shortages created by the Afghan strain on our medical system?
Either way, the Afghan influx has hit the region hard and as their wave of demographic change transforms the country, the next phase of the war in Afghanistan will take place in America..
A few days after September 11, Rep. Ilhan Omar signed a letter to the Secretary of Defense in response to complaints from the evacuees, claiming that the Afghans at Fort McCoy were suffering "mistreatment" and had been spoken to in a "rude condescending manner".
The next Omar, nurturing a grievance against America, is already at Fort McCoy. If the flood of Afghan migrants doesn’t stop, within another decade or two, she’ll be sitting in Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment