The Dangers Of Unchecked Immigration

A few years ago I had the privilege of meeting Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. I wrote about it here. She is now on a speaking tour in America shedding light on what has happened in Europe because of the large number of Muslim immigrants. An article outlining her observations is posted at The Gates of Vienna.

In the article she explains some of the history and some of the consequences of the unchecked migration into Europe:

The most important thing to remember is that it is PLANNED.

It did not start in 2015 when Chancellor Merkel made her famous invitation to all the “refugees” to come on in from the Middle East. It had been going on since the “Arab Spring” began in 2011, and especially since Qaddafi was deposed and killed. By the time the flood started in 2015 the masses of people were all there ready to move, and the traffickers were equipped to move them.

The current routes being used run across the Mediterranean from Libya. Vessels owned and operated by NGOs meet the “refugees” off the coast of Libya shortly after their launch and “rescue” them. They are assigned this task, and they collude with the people-traffickers to accomplish it.

The thing to remember in dealing with the Islamic culture is that their perspective is long-term. They are not part of the microwave society that we live in.

The second most important thing is that it is EXPENSIVE.

The routes used in 2015 across the Aegean into Greece costs thousands of dollars per head. The migrants themselves did not pay the costs. Somebody else did; the big question is WHO?

We don’t know for certain that Soros is behind it, although we know that his organizations are involved. (a) Some of his organizations are among those that own and operate the boats picking up migrants in the Med off the coast of Libya. (b) His organizations were discovered to have printed maps and helpful instruction sheets handed out to migrants during the great exodus of 2015.

The migrants did not walk across Europe. They traveled by ferry, bus, and train — a MILLION of them or more. Someone paid for that transport. It was expensive to charter those buses and run those trains.

We know that some of the cost was borne by the governments en route, but not all of it. George Soros was definitely involved, and there are strong indications that governments in the Persian Gulf gave financial assistance.

When they arrived in Slovenia and Austria, refugees bought goods and hired taxis using brand new €500 notes. Those notes are very unusual, and the refugees did not find them on the ground along the way. Someone gave the notes to them — WHO?

I suspect that the answer to that question will lead us to many more questions.

The article continues:

Sweden is the European country that is closest to collapse. Although Germany has been hit harder, its economy is stronger, and can withstand the current (very expensive) crisis longer.A couple of years before Merkel invited in the migrants from Syria, the Swedish prime minister at the time, Fredrik Reinfeldt, did EXACTLY the same thing — he made a public announcement that anyone from Syria who came to Sweden would be accepted. As a result, for a while Sweden was their preferred destination.

Now Sweden in undergoing nightly riots, gang wars, arson, bombings, rapes, and murders. It has reinstituted border controls.

Obviously Sweden has learned from experience. It remains to be seen whether or not the Swedes will ever reclaim their country.

  Free speech has been a casualty of the new open-borders policy. Immigration is not popular, but governments are determined that it must happen, so they crack down vigorously on any publicly-expressed sentiments against immigrants or Islam.Dissidents on the Great Migration are fired and harassed. They are routinely prosecuted in Sweden, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, France, and Britain. Prison sentences are now handed out for Facebook posts or for putting bacon on the door handle of a mosque.

It is no longer possible to speak out freely, honestly, and truthfully about the consequences of immigration in Europe.

This is the result of the unchecked invasion of Europe. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. We have the ability to prevent this from happening in America. The question is whether or not we will do what is necessary.


Where The Money Will Go In The Iranian Nuclear Deal

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about what the lifting of the economic sanctions will mean to Iran. One of the problems with lifting the sanctions is that despite claims to the contrary, much of the money will find its way to terrorist activities around the world.

The article reports:

Take the deal’s financial windfall for Iran’s terrorist and military activities, which even Mr. Obama conceded Wednesday would benefit. The inflow from sanctions relief could approach $150 billion within 16 months. The President says most of the money will go to improve Iran’s economy, but this misjudges the regime’s priorities and how its economy works.

Consider the Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, which is the regime’s military and ideological spine and controls an estimated 20% of the Iranian economy. This includes perhaps half of all government-owned companies, such as construction firm Khatam Al-Anbia, which is involved in building everything from city metros to oil pipelines; the Telecommunication Company of Iran, where an IRGC-controlled company has a 51% stake; and thousands of smaller front companies.

“To do business in Iran, foreign companies need an Iranian partner, which for large-scale projects often means firms controlled by the IRGC,” Reuters’s Pariza Hafezi and Louis Charbonneaureported in July. That means the Revolutionary Guards will benefit from the one-time windfall when Iranian oil profits now held in escrow are released, and going forward as foreign companies race to get into the Iran market.

The 700 Club this morning posted the following:


The Iranian nuclear deal will put American soldiers at greater risk. It will also put Israel in greater danger. It will also begin a nuclear arms race among Middle Eastern countries. This is not a deal that Congress should approve.

This Doesn’t Seem Very Peaceful To Me

CNN is reporting today that Iranian warships briefly pointed the weapons on its deck at a U.S. military helicopter and coalition warship two weeks ago in the Gulf of Aden. First of all–this story is listed under CNN Politics. This is not politics–this is national security–which until recent years was apolitical. One of the problems with the current politicians in Washington is that they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the good of America for the good of their political party. Term limits are needed, but that is another article.

The article at CNN reports:

In a statement released early Wednesday afternoon, the U.S. Navy characterized the interaction as “unsafe and unprofessional.”

The U.S. Navy took photos of the incident but has not publicly released them. The incident was observed by the USS Farragut, which had launched the U.S. helicopter.

The official said it’s been several weeks since there have been any serious encounters with Iranian military ships, although on two recent occasions, U.S. Navy ships did sound their horns to warn Iranian ships they were too close, and those ships moved to a farther distance.

The U.S. Navy said its forces are routinely approached by Iranian warships as they operate in the region, with the majority of all interactions by the Iranians conducted “in a safe and professional manner.”

“Unsafe and unprofessional!” What does it take for America to stand up and say that this is unacceptable? I am not in a hurry to go to war with anyone, but it seems to me that if we do not stand up to this sort of bullying at some point, it is only going to get worse. Obviously, the time to stand up to this bully is before he is equipped with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, our current leadership in the White House does not seem to understand that.

Removed From The Terrorist Threat List

I am not sure how a group goes about getting removed from the Terrorist Threat List put out by the National Intelligence Agency, but Iran and Hezbollah have done it.

The Times of Israel reported yesterday:

An annual report delivered recently to the US Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports.

The unclassified version of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, dated February 26, 2015 (PDF), noted Iran’s efforts to combat Sunni extremists, including those of the ultra-radical Islamic State group, who were perceived to constitute the preeminent terrorist threat to American interests worldwide.

Iran has been funding terrorism in the Middle East since the 1978 revolution. They have provided IED’s to Iraq and Afghanistan, killing and maiming American troops. Hezbollah has never made any secret of the fact that they are terrorists.

The National Intelligence report states:

We believe that this results from a combination of diplomatic interests (the United States’ talks with Iran about a nuclear deal) with the idea that Iran could assist in the battle against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and maybe even in the battle against jihadist terrorism in other countries,” the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center said in an analysis of the report (Hebrew PDF). It also noted the Iran and Hezbollah were both listed as terrorism threats in the assessment of another American body, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and Lebanese Hezbollah are instruments of Iran’s foreign policy and its ability to project power in Iraq, Syria, and beyond,” that assessment, also submitted to the Senate of February 26, said in its section on terrorism. “Hezbollah continues to support the Syrian regime, pro-regime militants and Iraqi Shia militants in Syria. Hezbollah trainers and advisors in Iraq assist Iranian and Iraqi Shia militias fighting Sunni extremists there. Select Iraqi Shia militant groups also warned of their willingness to fight US forces returning to Iraq.”

Israel, as well as Sunni allies of the US, has often warned that Iran, through Hezbollah and other proxies, has been sowing instability in the region. An escalating dispute between Jerusalem and Washington over the terms of an eventual agreement on Iran’s nuclear program has seen Israeli official rail against the relatively conciliatory tone adopted by US officials toward Iran, in light of the shared interest in combating the Islamic State.

When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Common Sense On Iran

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the National Review on Friday about some of the information that has been leaked out about the upcoming nuclear treaty with Iran.

The article reminds us of the relationship between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

 Iran is not negotiating in good faith–Iran is stalling for enough time to complete their work on an atomic bomb–at that point the negotiations will be moot.

Joel C. Rosenberg posted an article on his blog yesterday entitled, “The biggest threat now is not Radical Islam. It is “Apocalyptic Islam.”” The article includes excerpts from his speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention.

Mr. Rosenberg states:

The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what I call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

This term — “Apocalyptic Islam” — is one that each of needs to become familiar with and begin to teach others. Why? Because for the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states whose rulers are driven not by political ideology — or even mere religious theology — but by apocalyptic, genocidal End Times eschatology.

The Islamic Republic of Iran today is ruled by an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. (see also here, here and here)

So is the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. (see here and here)

The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe the End of days has come. Both believe their messiah – known as the “Mahdi” — is coming at any moment. Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Yet each has entirely different strategies to hasten his arrival or appearance on earth.

ISIS wants to build a caliphate. Iran wants to build The Bomb. ISIS is committing genocide now. Iran is preparing to commit genocide later.

Part of the doctrine of this form of Islam is that the coming of the Mahdi can be hastened by causing chaos around the world. Therefore there is no reluctance to cause harm to innocent people.

Mr. Rosenberg concludes:

These facts have real-world implications. Our President and many policy-makers are ignoring both the facts and their implications. But we must be clear: we face a threat from Radical Islam which seeks to attack us. We face an even greater threat from Apocalyptic Islam which seeks to annihilate us.

 The article at the National Review looks at President Obama’s history in dealing with Iran:

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

 Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

The article at National Review reminds us that Congress has the power to put in place economic sanctions on Iran. He also suggests that the United States make it clear that we will not stand in the way of any country willing to take the problem of Iran’s nuclear program into its own hands.

The article at the National Review concludes:

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

 This is one of those times in American History where the survival of our nation depends on Congress having a backbone. I don’t find that encouraging.