SANDY HAS IT RIGHT

Sandra says:

November 18, 2015 at 12:45 am

This cartoon, which I found in a Geert Wilders tweet, is the pictorial match to something I said to someone today about the so-called “moderate muslims”, that they might not be violent, but they are supporting Islam and making it possible for the more extreme ones to be violent.

If you stop thinking of Islam as a religion and start thinking about it as a form of totalitarianism, and instead of likening Muslims to Christians you liken Muslims to Nazis, then you realize the concept of “moderate muslims” is absurd. Those who are moderate are simply not practicing Islam faithfully. But they still support it.

I’m convinced now that the US, Canada, and European countries should implement a complete and total ban of Islam. If Muslims want to practice their totalitarianism somewhere, then they’ll have to do it in a Muslim country. There are plenty of those crapholes to choose from.

Lar of Galen...

You know, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis were rabid SS fanatics.  We still bombed the fracking shit out of them. 

Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeats its mistakes. 

ANN COULTER LETTER

When the Third World Attacks

Ann Coulter  | Wednesday Nov 18, 2015 5:39 PM

• New York Times, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015: “BRUSSELS — The French authorities have concluded that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 27-year-old Belgian man who has fought in Syria for the Islamic State, was the mastermind of the Paris terrorist attacks.”

Franco-Belgian yet cosmopolitan in culture, Abaaoud’s great-grandfather, Anselmus Aaster, opened the first chocolate shop on the Rue des Bouchers, Brussels. Abaaoud claimed to be a distant relation of the 17th-century Baroque artist, Philippe de Champaigne, who painted Cardinal Richelieu eleven times …

Give me a break, New York Times. The Paris terrorists were 100 percent Middle Eastern, although most were born in Muslim ghettos in Europe.

After 50 years of the most backward, dysfunctional cultures pouring into the civilized world, the media are forced to blatantly lie to us whenever immigrants attack: This has nothing to do with refugees! Ismail Omar Mostefai is “a Frenchman.”

Ismail is “French” in the same way that Caitlin Jenner is a “woman.” That doesn’t mean we can draw no conclusions about the relative strength of men and women, even though a “woman” won the decathlon at the 1976 Olympics.

The fact that only one of the terrorists was part of the current “refugee” flow proves we’re facing something much bigger than a refugee problem: We can’t assimilate them. These days, second-generation immigrants are just as likely to shoot up Fort Hood as the first-generation Tsarnaev brothers are to blow up the Boston Marathon.

The insistent demand for an endless flow of Third World immigrants to the West goes well beyond cheap labor for the rich. It has become a mass psychosis.

Why should we act as if our cultures are better than those that haven’t made advanced scientific discoveries, such as that women are human beings? That would be “xenophobic”! Successful countries must allow themselves to be overrun by backward cultures so that no country thinks it’s better than another.

This psychosis runs so deep that even a father who was with his 12-year-old son at the Bataclan theater during the attack refused to notice anything distinctive about the shooters. Asked to describe one assailant’s face on CNN, the man replied, “He looked like a young fellow.”

He was young! Fantastic — bring the police sketch artist!

While liberals’ idea of retaliation is to post the French flag on their Twitter profiles, Republicans think the way to get tough is to go to war in Syria.

Marco Rubio gives macho speeches about a military attack on ISIS — “either they win or we win!” — to distract from the fact that his immigration bill would have massively increased the number of needy immigrants pouring into our country — including Muslim refugees.

So Rubio’s plan for Middle East stability is to start more wars and then import all the displaced terrorists into the United States. Brilliant!

Not to be a stickler, but ISIS didn’t slaughter 3,000 Americans on 9/11, blow up the Boston Marathon, murder nine Americans at Fort Hood, or open fire on a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

ISIS didn’t kill Kate Steinle, commit mass murder on the Long Island Railroad, introduce Palo Mayombe and Santeria to our country, bring slaves and concubines from India to San Francisco, or burn down hundreds of acres of national parks to evade border agents.

ISIS doesn’t import 90 percent of the illegal drugs that kill thousands of Americans every year, steal billions of dollars from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, or rape little girls, nuns and dogs in our country.

ISIS isn’t responsible for Sweden suddenly becoming the rape capital of the world, the Eritrean asylum seeker who stabbed a mother and a son to death at an Ikea store in Vasteras a few months ago, or the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh being stabbed to death on a street in Amsterdam.

All that — and more! — is the result of Third World immigration to the First World.

The West’s importation of Stone Age people is a completely self-inflicted wound. It’s as if the civilized world decided to amputate a leg. You know what? We’re too healthy and pure. Peg legs are stylish!

The idea that the only way to stop Third World immigrants from murdering Westerners is for our military to remake foreign hellholes into “proud, functioning and viable member(s) of the community of nations” — as Madeline Albright said when we sent troops to Somalia in 1993 — goes back to the Left’s “root causes” theory.

Instead of imprisoning criminals, liberal judges in the 1960s decided that we must tackle the “root causes” of crime by addressing PID: poverty, ignorance and disease. To fight crime, we’d deploy welfare, Head Start and school lunch programs!

For the next two decades our streets ran with blood. Americans finally rose up in a blind rage and demanded that criminals be separated from the law-abiding.

Similarly, we wish the best for all the barbaric, misogynistic, pedophilic, illiterate nations of the world. But the main thing we want is for our government to keep them away from us.

Isn’t keeping murderers out of the country literally the least our government can do? America has been pretty generous to the rest of the world, taking in more than twice as many refugees as the rest of the world combined. As Donald Trump says, now we need a “pause.”

Rubio’s war in Syria to stop terrorism at home is the Republican version of Clinton’s “midnight basketball” to stop street crime. Pay no attention to all those murderous migrants — we’ll fix that by rebuilding their home nations!

True, a war against ISIS might “send a message.” But we were hoping to send a different message: Stay home.

No, It Is Not Un-American to Prefer Christian Refugees to Muslim Refugees

By Ben Shapiro · Nov. 18, 2015

On Friday, Muslim terrorists murdered 129 people in Paris. At least one of the ISIS perpetrators apparently entered Europe as a “refugee” from Syria — he was found with a refugee ID. ISIS has already claimed that they have infiltrated the Syrian refugee population to the tune of thousands of terrorists.

On Monday, President Obama announced that it would be purely un-American for Westerners to ban unvetted Muslim immigrants from the Middle East while allowing Christian targets of genocide to enter the West. He called such an idea “shameful,” while passionately calling for Americans to “open our hearts” to more refugees. He praised bordering countries Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon for taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees; Obama said that showed their “belief in a common humanity.” He added, “And so we have to, each of us, do our part. And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims …That’s not American. That’s not who we are.”

Every aspect of this little speech is wrong. Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon aren’t taking in Muslim refugees out of some great commitment to common humanity. They’re doing so because their other choice involves setting up fences and machine guns to stop the waves of refugees crossing their frontiers. And as we know, Muslim countries have a rotten history of absorbing fellow members of their ummah: For 70 years, since the creation of the State of Israel, tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs have lived in refugee camps located in Muslim lands. By contrast, the State of Israel has taken in every Jewish refugee seeking asylum, from Russian emigres to Moroccan immigrants, from Ethiopian refugees to Syrian expatriates.

And the West has good reason for skepticism toward Muslim refugees. While Muslim refugees who stay in the Middle East split evenly between males and females, the vast majority of refugees entering Europe are males of fighting age. Muslim immigration has already led to massive increases in crime from France to Sweden, and cultural fragmentation from Great Britain to Austria. Terrorism is only the latest threat — and even that threat is obviously not exaggerated. Vetting refugees from Syria is nearly impossible given its status as a failed state. Vetting Muslim refugees is totally impossible given the fact that radical Muslims can easily masquerade as less-radical Muslims.

So why does President Obama, along with the global left, seek more Muslim immigration? Because President Obama does not believe that Islam, as a religious philosophy, presents any threat to the West. He believes that radical Islam doesn’t exist. It’s merely the hallmark of global poverty, probably affected negatively by climate change; if the West redistributed its wealth, ceased its “colonial” attitudes toward the Middle East, all would be well. The materialism of Marxism would win the day.

Never mind that this argument is entirely without evidence. Never mind that Muslims from Western nations have left wealth to join the impoverished ISIS fighters. Never mind that Osama Bin Laden himself was a wealthy man who lived in a cave to plan attacks against Westerners. Ideology matters, but to the self-centered Marxists of the global left, only their ideology matters: Everyone else has merely fallen into nasty ideas thanks to lack of resources.

And so we must give them our resources, endanger our own citizens. To do anything else would be un-American, according to the people whose idea of Americanism involves the rejection of the very ideas upon which America was built.

Lar of Galen...

“I hope you will join me in fundamentally changing America.”  --  President-elect Barak Hussein Obama

A woman called in to Mark Levin’s show tonight.  Her son has been in the US military for 12 years, and is currently stationed in Germany.  His wife, a German citizen, and her young children gathered up toys to take to the young children among the Syrian “refugees” in their city.  There weren’t any.  BO claims that these “refugees” are largely women and children, fleeing violence.  He is, as usual, lying.  They are overwhelmingly young men of military age.  I say again, they are coming here because 1) If they stay, they will have to fight for either their government or  for ISIS – risking death either way,  2) To take advantage of our insane welfare systems and help overwhelm our society,  3) To commit acts of terror, or  4) Some combination of the previous three.  Bottom line, they are coming to tear us down and subjugate us to Islam.  If you doubt my supposition, ask yourself:  Why would hundreds of thousands of Muslims by-pass Muslims neighbors to come to the West, to distant foreign lands for whose cultures they proclaim disdain?  It can’t be for any good reason.

More from Lar of Galen...

How is it they were able to get so far before someone noticed that their passports were poorly-made fakes?  And notice that their first 2 stops were Muslim countries.  The American people must wake up! This whole immigrant scheme is not a matter of “compassion”.  ONE MORE TIME:  Why would “refugees” by-pass their cousins and travel great distances to settle in countries whose culture they disdain?  There can be no good, reasonable answer for this. They have evil intentions. WW III is and has been happening, and we are actually importing the enemy to be amongst us instead of destroying them over there. This is all sheer insanity.  I suspect we are living in the End Times, but then .. we have been since the completion of the canon, and can’t count on being “beamed up” from this mess.