Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Emerging Islamist Political Clout Accelerates Europe's Self-Islamization - Abigail R. Esman




by Abigail R. Esman

Jihad by culture.




Forget the beheading videos, the ISIS propaganda on social media, even the terrorist attacks themselves. Europe, says counterterrorism expert Afshin Ellian, is Islamizing itself, and in the process, the Western values on which its democracies are built are increasingly put at risk.

Take, for instance, Belgium's ISLAM Party, which now hopes to participate in the country's October local elections in 28 regions. (Its name serves as an acronym for "Integrité, Solidarité, Liberté, Authenticité, Moralité.)

Its ultimate aim: transforming Belgium into an Islamic state. Items high on its agenda include separating men and women on public transportation, and the incorporation of sharia law – as long as this does not conflict with current laws –according to the party's founder, Redouane Ahrouch. His own behavior, however, suggests that his respect for "current laws" and mores has its bounds: He reportedly refuses to shake hands with women, and in 2003, he received a six-month sentence for beating and threatening his wife. Currently, the Islam Party has two elected representatives in office – one in Anderlecht, the other in Molenbeek – both regions that happen to be known as hotbeds of extremism.

Or consider DENK, Holland's pro-Islam party founded in 2015 by Turkish-Dutch politicians Selçuk Ozturk and Tunahan Kuzu. The party platform, which supports boycotts and sanctions against Israel, also discourages assimilation, calling instead for "mutual acceptance" of multiple cultures. Non-Muslims, for instance, would apparently be required to "accept" the Muslim extremist father who beats his daughter for refusing an arranged marriage, or for becoming too "Westernized" for his taste. It's his culture, after all.

DENK also calls for a "racism police force" to monitor allegedly racist comments and actions. Those found guilty would be placed in a government "racism register," and banned from government jobs and other employment.

So far, such pro-Islamist views have served the party well. In local Dutch elections last month, DENK (which means "think" in Dutch) gained three seats in Rotterdam, totaling four seats among 45 total and edging out Geert Wilders' far-right Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), which fell from three seats to one. In Amsterdam, which also has 45 seats, a full 50 percent of Dutch-Moroccans and about two-thirds of Dutch-Turks gave the party a three-seat win in its first election there, as well. Many of these voters, according to post-election analyses, moved to DENK from the center-left Labor Party (PvdA), clearly feeling more at home with a more overtly pro-Muslim politic.

Similarly, France's Union of Muslim Democrats (UDMF) has taken a number of voters from the Green Party by promising to defend Muslims. UDMF's online program statement condemns burqa and headscarf bans. What's more, in its pretense of supporting what it calls the "sweet dream of Democracy, Union and Human Rights," the party loudly (though rightly) condemns "anti-Muslim speeches" that "lead the most psychologically fragile people to commit acts of unprecedented violence." Examples of such "unprecedented violence" follow: a German white supremacist, who killed an Egyptian woman wearing a veil in 2009, and the stabbing of a French Muslim in Vaucluse. "Heavy weapons attacks have exploded in Europe since the beginning of the year against Muslim places of worship," the statement reads.

What the party statement does not mention anywhere are the attacks by Muslims in Paris and Nice that together killed 240 people between January 2015 and July 2016; the attack by a Muslim extremist on a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012; and the kidnapping and heinous torture of Ilan Halimi, a 23-year-old Jew, in 2006. These are among other acts of "unprecedented violence" by Islamists.

UDMF also calls for protection of the family and its "essential role in the education of children," while citing Article 14 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child which calls for respecting "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion." From here, the party demands the "right and duty of parents....to guide the child in the exercise of the above-mentioned right." Implied here is the demand that parents be allowed to treat their children as they see fit according to their religious beliefs – including to beat daughters who refuse an arranged marriage, becoming "too Westernized," and so on.

Most disturbing are the large numbers of Muslims who have all flocked to parties like DENK and UDMF throughout Europe. Rather than moving towards more secular, traditionally democratic political movements, Europe's Muslims are apparently increasingly distancing themselves from the "European" side of their identity and identifying more with Islam and the Muslim community. And this, too, is part of Europe's "self-Islamizing," the result of taking too unsure a hand, too ambivalent a position, on the issue of assimilation.

Indeed, as Ellian points out, European institutions have enabled this cultural separation. Photographs taken last November during a meeting of the Muslim student union at Amsterdam's Vrije Universiteit revealed that men and women sat on opposite sides of the auditorium aisle. Such events are common, according to journalist Carel Brendel, who first reported on the incident. "Yet the administrations [of these schools] do little or nothing about it, despite the fact that their own rules forbid" such gender separation," he told the Investigative Project. Brendel has also exposed links between the Amsterdam police and Abdelilah el Amran, a Muslim Brotherhood-connected imam invited by the police department to lead last year's annual Iftar dinner marking the end of a day's fast during Ramadan. Amran, Brendel said, also oversees a group of interconnected organizations, including an Islamic school that came under investigation last year for having separate entrances for boys and girls.

Worth noting about the event, according to Brendel, is that no other government body sponsors a religious ceremony. Nor does any Dutch government agency, let alone the police, host a Passover Seder or observe any other religious event with the public.

In addition, and perhaps more alarming, a spokesperson for the Rotterdam police posted to Twitter that day that "police will be difficult to reach tonight, due to various Iftar meals." City security and the safety of citizens, in other words, was being compromised in the name of a religious celebration.

Elsewhere, other signs of self-Islamization can be found in the rise of other Muslim parties in Austria as well as a failed effort in Sweden; a proposed ban on the British press against identifying terrorists as Muslim; the proliferation of sharia courts in the UK; and the repeated efforts by some Canadian officials to legalize sharia – a debate that recently has been revived.

While all of this involves political movements, it stands as a reminder of what the ideology behind the "war on terrorism" is really all about: an attack against our culture. We need to do better at protecting it.

Reprinted from Investigative Project.


Abigail R. Esman

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269918/emerging-islamist-political-clout-accelerates-abigail-r-esman

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

John Brennan's Secret Trip to Moscow - Daniel John Sobieski




by Daniel John Sobieski

Did John Brennan collude with the Russians to guarantee his continued tenure as CIA director?


The Russians say he did, and while some might say, well, these are the same Russians who helped put together the Steele dossier filled with "salacious and unverified" material, and may once again be playing with us, there is evidence that Brennan, the man who voted for communist Gus Hall for president, did make the trip in March 2016 for purposes unknown:
"It's no secret that Brennan was here," claimed Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov. "But he didn't visit the Foreign Ministry. I know for sure that he met with the Federal Security Service (the successor agency to the Soviet KGB), and someone else."
No further remarks clarify what Brennan was allegedly doing in Moscow or what he discussed with the FSB. Syromolotov insists it had nothing to do with Russia's withdrawal from Syria.
Sputnik News, a Kremlin-controlled propaganda outlet, quotes CIA Director of Public Affairs Dean Boyd as affirming that Brennan did, in fact, discuss Syria during the visit. "Director Brennan," he allegedly said, "reiterated the US government's consistent support for a genuine political transition in Syria, and the need for [President Bashar] Assad's departure in order to facilitate a transition that reflects the will of the Syrian people."
The website GlobalSecurity.Org goes into somewhat more detail about Brennan's Moscow trip without clearing up confusion about what the purpose of the trip might have been:

News of the CIA chief's visit to the Russian capital was first made public on Monday by a Russian foreign ministry spokesman and subsequently confirmed by the CIA.
"It's no secret that Brennan was here," the Interfax news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Oleg Syromolotov as telling journalists in Moscow.
He added that the visit was not linked to Moscow's decision to start withdrawing military forces from Syria, which President Vladimir Putin announced on March 14.
Dean Boyd, director of the CIA's Office of Public Affairs, confirmed Monday that Brennan visited Moscow.
"Director Brennan traveled to Russia in early March to emphasize with Russian officials the importance of Russia and the Assad regime following through on their agreements to implement the cessation of hostilities in Syria," said Boyd.
He added that Brennan "also reiterated the U.S. government's consistent support for a genuine political transition in Syria, and the need for Assad's departure in order to facilitate a transition that reflects the will of the Syrian people."
Now, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for a CIA director to make a trip to Moscow, but when a Russian deputy foreign minister says he didn't visit the Foreign Ministry itself but did visit the KGB's successor, the Federal Security Service (FSB), it raises some eyebrows.

Consider that John Brennan is a Trump-hating perjurer who lied to Congress about secret surveillance. He is the crown prince of a Deep State fiefdom that has its own agenda. The end justifies the means in their world, and Brennan may have been up to his eyeballs in developing that "insurance policy" against a Trump victory.

Certainly, he ruthlessly defended his CIA turf. The mind hearkens back to the day when an op-ed in the Washington Post, that right-wing rag, called for Brennan to be fired for conducting illegal surveillance of the Senate Intelligence Committee and then lying about it:
Brennan was asked by NBC's Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers "to thwart an investigation by the committee into" the agency's past interrogation techniques. The accusation had been made earlier that day by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said the CIA had "violated the separation-of-powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution." Brennan answered:
As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn't do that. I mean, that's – that's just beyond the – you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do. ...
And, you know, when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.
(You can see the video of Brennan's answer here.)
Now we know that the truth was far different. The Post's Greg Miller reports:
CIA Director John O. Brennan has apologized to leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee after an agency investigation determined that its employees improperly searched computers used by committee staff to review classified files on interrogations of prisoners. ...
A statement released by the CIA on Tuesday acknowledged that agency employees had searched areas of that computer network that were supposed to be accessible only to committee investigators. Agency employees were attempting to discover how congressional aides had obtained a secret CIA internal report on the interrogation program.
Brennan once proudly admitted that he voted for Communist Party leader Gus Hall and openly supports liars and perjurers like Andrew McCabe, James Clapper, and James Comey. The possibility that he went to Moscow to personally obtain a copy of the dossier and similar material is real. As I wrote here recently, Brennan may have colluded with foreign spies to help Hillary Clinton.

There is another scenario as plausible as the one asserting that Team Trump, and perhaps President Trump himself, colluded with the Russians. It is that John Brennan himself colluded with the Russians to help Hillary win to guarantee his continued tenure as CIA director. It involves the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, used by Brenan and others as a pretext for a Trump investigation bonanza. As the American Spectator reported:
An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election – Hillary's.
Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump's candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people[.] ...
The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC's Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.
Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary's propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).
The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan "passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan." To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the "Gang of Eight" about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.
Could it be that Brennan himself is the leaker of classified information and is up to his eyeballs in using foreign sources to gather dirt on President Trump for the purpose of keeping him out of the White House? Brennan's briefing of Sen. Harry Reid, which included information from the Steele dossier, certainly is a key indicator of his participation in the campaign to keep or kick Donald Trump out of the White House:
According to "Russian Roulette," by Yahoo! News chief investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff and David Corn, the Washington bureau chief of the left-wing Mother Jones magazine, Brennan contacted Reid on Aug. 25, 2016, to brief him on the state of Russia's interference in the presidential campaign. Brennan briefed other members of the so-called Gang of Eight, but Reid is the only who took direct action.
Two days after the briefing, Reid wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey asserting that "evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount.
Reid's letter referred to some public reporting about Trump campaign associates' links to the Kremlin, but he also included a reference to information that may not have been made public at the time. He cited allegations that were included in the infamous Steele dossier about Carter Page, an adviser to the Trump campaign at the time.

It would seem that the trip to Russia we should be investigating is not Carter Page's, but rather John Brennan's.









Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/john_brennans_secret_trip_to_moscow.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Should Robert Mueller Be Investigated for Violating Civil Liberties? - Alan M. Dershowitz




by Alan M. Dershowitz

Too many former civil libertarians are prepared to sacrifice civil liberties and the quest for truth on the altar of "Get Trump."

Just as the first casualty of war is truth, so, too, the first casualty of hyper-partisan politics is civil liberties.

Many traditional civil libertarians have allowed their strong anti-Trump sentiments to erase their long-standing commitment to neutral civil liberties. They are now so desperate to get Trump that they are prepared to compromise the most basic due process rights. They forget the lesson of history that such compromises made against one's enemy are often used as precedents against one's friends. As Robert Bolt put it in the play and movie A Man for all Seasons:
Roper: So now you would give the Devil benefit of Law!
Thomas Moore: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that?
Thomas Moore: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
But today's fair weather civil libertarians are unwilling to give President Trump – who they regard as the devil -- the "benefit of law" and civil liberties.

Consider the issue of criticizing Robert Mueller, the Special counsel. Any criticism or even skepticism regarding Mueller's history is seen as motivated by a desire to help Trump. Mueller was an Assistant US attorney in Boston, the head of its criminal division, the head of the criminal division in Main Justice and the Director of the FBI during the most scandalous miscarriage of justice in the modern history of the FBI. Four innocent people were framed by the FBI in order to protect mass murdering gangsters who were working as FBI informers while they were killing innocent people. An FBI agent, who is now in prison, was tipping off Whitey Bulger as to who might testify against him so that these individuals could be killed. He also tipped off Bulger allowing him to escape and remain on the lam for 16 years.

What responsibility, if any, did Robert Mueller, who was in key positions of authority and capable of preventing these horrible miscarriages, have in this sordid incident? A former member of the parole board – a liberal Democrat who also served as mayor of Springfield, Massachusetts – swears that he saw a letter from Robert Mueller urging the denial of release for at least one of these wrongfully convicted defendants. When he went back to retrieve the letter, it was not in the file. This should surprise no one since Judge Mark Wolf (himself a former prosecutor), who conducted extensive hearings about this entire mess, made the following findings:
"The files relating to the Wheeler murder, and the FBI's handling of them, exemplify recurring irregularities with regard to the preparation, maintenance, and production in this case of documents damaging to Flemmi and Bulger. First, there appears to be a pattern of false statements placed in Flemmi's informant file to divert attention from his possible crimes and/or FBI misconduct....
Second, contrary to the FBI's usual policy and practice, all but one of the reports containing Halloran's allegations against Bulger and Flemmi were not indexed and placed in an investigative file referencing their names. Thus, those documents were not discoverable by a standard search of the FBI's indices. Similar irregularities in indexing and, therefore, access occurred with regard to information that the FBI received concerning an extortion by Bulger of Hobart Willis and from Joseph Murray concerning the murder of Brian Halloran, among other things.
Third, when documents damaging to the FBI were found by the Bureau, they were in some instances not produced to the defendants or the court at the time required by the court's Orders."[1]
Judge Wolf also made a finding that directly references Mueller's state of knowledge regarding the "history":
"The source also claimed to have information that Bulger and Pat Nee had murdered Halloran and Bucky Barrett. The source subsequently said that there was an eyewitness to the Halloran shooting who might come forward, and elaborated that: "there is a person named John, who claims he talked to Whitey and Nee as they sat in the car waiting for Halloran on Northern Avenue. He sits in a bar and talks about it. He saw the whole operation". The source added that the person providing the information to the source "will be willing to talk to you (authorities) soon." On February 3, 1988, Weld directed Keeney to have the information that he had received sent to the United States Attorney in Boston, Frank McNamara, and to the Strike Force Chief, O'Sullivan. Weld added that: "Both O'Sullivan and [Assistant United States Attorney] Bob Mueller are well aware of the history, and the information sounds good."[2]
It is not the beyond the realm of possibility therefore that Mueller wrote this letter, even if it is no longer in the files. If in fact Mueller wrote such a letter, without thoroughly investigating the circumstances, he surely bears some responsibility. Moreover, it is widely believed among Boston law enforcement observers that the FBI was not really looking for Whitey Bulger during the years that Mueller was its Director. It is believed that the FBI was fearful about what Bulger would disclose about his relationship with agents over the years. It took a member of the US Marshall's office to find Bulger who was hiding in plain view in Santa Monica, California.

Recently, a former federal judge, who used to be a civil libertarian, rushed to Mueller's defense, declaring "without equivocation" that Mueller "had no involvement" in the massive miscarriage of justice. Her evidence is the lack of evidence in the files. But no civil libertarian should place such great trust in government files, especially in light of Judge Wolf's findings. They should join my call for an objective investigation by the Inspector General of the Justice Department before they assure the public "without equivocation" that Mueller had absolutely "no involvement." But these "Get Trump At Any Cost" partisans have rejected my call for an investigation, out of fear that it may turn up information that might tarnish the image of the Special Counsel who is investigating Trump. Instead they criticize those of us who point out that Mueller was "at the center" of the Justice Department and FBI, while this miscarriage of justice occurred. All civil libertarians should want the truth about this sordid episode -- and Mueller's possible role in it -- regardless of its impact, if any, on the Trump investigation. Mueller too should welcome an objective investigation, which might eliminate any doubt about his role in this travesty. But too many former civil libertarians are prepared to sacrifice civil liberties and the quest for truth on the altar of "Get Trump."


Robert Mueller. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

This is all too typical of the about-face many civil libertarians have taken since Trump became president. I have previously written about the ACLU's abdication of its traditional role in challenging governmental overreaching. For the new ACLU getting Trump trumps civil liberties.

It is ironic to see many right-wingers being the ones to criticize overreach by law enforcement, while many left-wingers now defend such overreaching. Hypocrisy and selective outrage abounds, as neutral principles take a back seat. Conservatives used to say that "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." I would respond that "a liberal is a conservative who is being audited or whose kid was busted for pot." Today a civil libertarian is a conservative whose candidate is being investigated, while a law-and-order type is a liberal who wants to see Trump charged or impeached.

I am a liberal who voted against Trump but who insists that his civil liberties must be respected for all of our sake.
This article first appeared in The Hill.

[1] United States v. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d 141, 154 n.3 (D. Mass. 1999).
[2] Id. at 256-57.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of Trumped Up, How Criminalization of Political Differences endangers Democracy.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12215/mueller-investigation-civil-liberties

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Kanye West – Revolutionary in the Making? - Mark Tapson




by Mark Tapson

Hell hath no fury like Progressives spurned by blacks.




A seismic shift in the cultural and political American landscape this weekend emanated from an unlikely epicenter: superstar rapper Kanye West, who tweeted a controversial endorsement of black conservative commentator Candace Owens. Nothing triggers leftist anger quite like blacks thinking for themselves, and not like they do. So the left erupted with predictable fury toward both West and Owens. 

Kanye, whose ubiquitous wife Kim Kardashian was a prominent supporter of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, has drawn leftist fire before. First, he incurred online scorn from the left and right in 2015 for announcing his serious intention to run for President in 2020. Then shortly after the 2016 presidential election, he shared with a California audience that he didn’t vote, but if he had, he “would’ve voted for Trump,” an admission that was unusual to say the least for a celebrity of his stature, black or white. It angered and bewildered fans so much that they actually expressed concern about Kanye’s mental health.

In December of 2016, he met briefly with Trump, who referred to Kanye at the time as his “friend,” to discuss “multicultural issues,” primarily the topic of violence in Chicago where Kanye was raised. This showed some surprising independence of mind and considerable courage on Kanye’s part, considering that black-on-black violence in blighted urban centers controlled by Democrat politicians is a scourge the left is silent about.

Then this past Saturday morning, Kanye dropped a bombshell tweet, declaring, “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.” As of this writing it has been retweeted over 21,000 times and “liked” over 81,000 times. A few minutes later he followed up with another seemingly supportive message, “only free thinkers,” which holds similarly high numbers of retweets and “likes.”



Owens is a millennial black conservative commentator known to her 183,000 subscribers on YouTube as “Red Pill Black.” Her recognition factor was increased last September by an interview with fellow former lefty Dave Rubin on his immensely popular YouTube talk show, The Rubin Report. In that interview she discussed her journey from left to right, her issues with the left’s corrosive identity politics, and her thoughts on activist journalists essentially serving as media “hitmen.” Rubin has continued to be a big supporter of Owens.

That November she joined many other prominent conservative figures such as Mark Steyn, Sebastian Gorka, James O’Keefe, and Ann Coulter at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s annual Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida, an invitation which she later told Horowitz “changed my life. I was pretty unknown until then.”

At Restoration Weekend, Owens met Charlie Kirk, leader of the conservative youth nonprofit Turning Point USA, who was so taken with her presentation that he appointed her director of urban engagement for the organization. Both she and TPUSA are being demonized in media reports now as “far-right,” because the left smears anyone to the ideological right of the lifelong supporter of Communist causes, Bernie Sanders, as equivalent to the Taliban. Owens recently spoke at a TPUSA event at UCLA, where she was heckled by a Black Lives Matter contingent in the otherwise mostly-supportive audience. Owens delivered a smackdown (see video below) in which she memorably noted that the difference between the BLM hecklers and the respectful blacks elsewhere in the audience was a “victim mentality versus a victor mentality.” In a tweeted clip from the event, Owens referred to the protesters as “a bunch of whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention.”


She has even come to the attention of Donald Trump, whose family has embraced her as a friend and supporter. Of the President who has done more for black Americans in one year than his predecessor did in eight, Owens said, “I love the guy, I love him, because what he represented to me is the death of political correctness, and you have no idea how necessary that death is. The truth is that Trump as an individual appeals to younger people. His whole style is younger, it’s fresher, it’s not buttoned up, it’s authentic. That’s the way we speak. We’re the LOL nation.”

Conservative blacks like Owens are dismissed by the left as Uncle Toms and race traitors, so it takes extraordinary courage to face that ugly onslaught as she and Kanye West have done. Increasing numbers of blacks are finding that courage, however. Owens told Breitbart News in March that the news media are “pretending that black conservatives don’t exist, when in fact the truth is, it’s growing, we’re multiplying. Every single day a black person goes, ‘Okay, you know what? Being a victim is boring.’”

That message seems to have caught the ear of Kanye West, whose tweet this weekend touting Owens sparked a flood of responses. On the conservative side, activist and writer Richard Armande Mills wrote, “I have legitimate tears in my eyes. For a hip-hop artist with a platform like West’s to promote and align with a strong conservative like @RealCandaceO. I’m in awe. This is amazing. My morning is made.” Actress Roseanne Barr, who plays a Trump supporter in her recent reboot of Roseanne which delivered jaw-dropping ratings, responded with a simple, “Bingo.”

Race-baiting replies from the left included a response from washed-up comedian (and former Roseanne Barr husband) Tom Arnold, who has plenty of spare time now in which to rail against Donald Trump on social media. He chimed in with illiterate disapproval: “Aside from being an insane alt right race pimp Candace Owens thinks Donald Trump is literally the messiah not you @kanyewest so you might want to reconsider.”

Owens replied to Arnold and two other prominent critics, “When @PerezHilton, @TomArnold, @ShaunKing, 3 white men, rush to viciously attack the freedom of two black people who refuse to be pawns to a leftist ideology—it should ring as a wake up call to the world about who the real racists are. None of you white men own my blackness.”


This agitated Arnold, who wrote back a typically ugly, profane leftist attack: ““That’s a lot of extra words @RealCandaceO so you can suck racist d--- by trying to insult an actual hero @ShaunKing hahahaha. #MAGA” – a tweet he later deleted.

“Candace Owens is making money off of denigrating black folks for her mostly white audience,” asserted black sports broadcaster Herb Lawrence. “Same as that [NRA advocate Colion] Noir guy, same as [actress/activist] Stacey Dash, same as Allen West etc.”

Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King tweeted that Kanye’s admiration for Owens is “sad.” Owens shot back at the purportedly biracial King, “Out of curiosity… are you still pretending to be black?”

Writer and transgender activist Raquel Willis tweeted, “Candace Owens has proven to be anti-Black, anti-LGBTQ and fact-hating.” Every one of those descriptors is false but typical of the left’s politics of personal destruction. “For Kanye to align himself with her is messy and dangerous.”

What’s dangerous about it is that it threatens the left’s stranglehold on the black community. As Owens tweeted Sunday, “They control your media. They control your idols. They control your mind.” If blacks and other minorities start getting the subversive idea that they can think for themselves and thrive on their own, off the Democrat plantation that has kept them under the Party’s thumb for half a century, then the Democratic Party is finished. Dangerous indeed.

One Kanye critic wrote, “I’m ready to delete, burn and never buy another Kanye album or item if this is who [sic] he supports,” referring to Owens. Political commentator Touré (who wisely eschews his last name Neblett), formerly an MSNBC regular and now reduced to podcasting, echoed that sentiment when he tweeted, “How many times can Kanye signal his affinity for people with anti-Black policies and positions before it takes a toll on how Black fans feel about him?”

But thanks to Kanye, what many of those black fans are now being exposed to is Candace Owens’ message that it is the Democratic Party that holds anti-black policies and positions, while conservatism offers blacks freedom from Progressive slavery.

As the firing squads gathered around him, Kanye not only didn’t back down, but doubled-down with a series of short tweets, including: “Express what you feel not what you’ve been programmed to think,” “get past the past,” “question everything,” “the blinders are off,” “People demonize people and then they demonize anybody who sees anything positive in someone whose been demonized,” “the thought police want to suppress freedom of thought,” “constantly bringing up the past keeps you stuck there,” “there was a time when slavery was the trend and apparently that time is still upon us. But now it's a mentality,” and “self-victimization is a disease.” These are clarion calls for black liberation from the one-party mind and one-party state that runs the ghettos and the killing fields and the failed schools of America’s inner cities.

Owens herself responded to Kanye’s praise with, “I’m freaking out. @kanyewest ....please take a meeting with me. I tell every single person that everything that I have been inspired to do, was written in your music. I am my own biggest fan, because you made it okay. I need you to help wake up the black community.”

Kanye may already have begun that process. He has 22.5 million Twitter followers. The seven words he tweeted about Candace Owens boosted her profile immeasurably, but more importantly, they sparked a vital conversation the left does not want blacks to have.


Mark Tapson is the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Journalism Fellow on Popular Culture, and the Center's Director of Marketing and Media.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269973/kanye-west-%E2%80%93-revolutionary-making-mark-tapson

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

What we learned from Ms. Portman - Dr. Eitan Orkibi




by Dr. Eitan Orkibi

Those who prod Israel to make territorial concessions don't exactly stand by our side when we have to contend with the consequences.

While everyone was busy being star struck, an important aspect of Natalie Portman's decision to reject the Genesis Prize "due to recent events" on the Gaza border was missed in the public discourse. Her announcement reeks of opportunism, as explained on these pages by Amnon Lord on Monday, and her reasoning vacillated until finally finding the safe shores of "not wanting to appear as endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu."

There is a lesson here that we should learn though, whether about the dizzying speed in which anti-Israel propaganda spreads, or about the capriciousness of our friends who preach in favor of territorial concessions.

Some Israelis, ever since Barack Obama's departure from the White House, have desperately sought an alternate cosmopolitan hero to rely on and apparently think the Israeli public suffers from short-term memory loss about the withdrawal from Gaza and the promises that were made about giving the IDF freedom of action once we leave the coastal enclave. We would be able to deploy along a recognized sovereign border, they assured us, from where we could defend Israel's security without having to answer to the world.

It's ironic that the disengagement from Gaza – whose propagandists marketed it as a successful "pilot" for a future "ingathering" from Judea and Samaria – did in fact play the role of harbinger. Not only did it foreshadow Palestinian violence and their plans for the day after occupation, but the behavior of the so-called peace camp as well. The public is asking what it can glean from this camp's reaction to the IDF's conduct on the Gaza border, and about the day we will have to contend with a similar scenario on a different border – next to Modiin let's say?

The Palestinians occasionally try catching us off guard: a rocket here, a tunnel there, storming the border fence. On the other hand, those who wanted us to leave Gaza adhere to a fairly regular script: First comes a provocative post on social media, followed by the appearance of opinion pieces and petitions against Israel's military brutality; eventually, portions of this sentiment are translated into a heartfelt declaration and land on the pages of some leading European journal or in a pointed interview on Al-Jazeera.

What is still changing is the speed with which the IDF is accused of war crimes. It seems that from one incident to the next, the time it takes to go from accusations of "disproportionate response" to "slaughtering innocents" keeps getting shorter. And if "the State of Israel shoots protesters" then clearly it would be immoral to receive an award from its blood-drenched hands.

None of this is to say that the "peace camp" shouldn't be allowed to protest, or that criticizing the IDF is forbidden. It only means that from one round to the next it is getting easier to predict certain behaviors. A large part of the public's aversion to future territorial concessions doesn't stem from the violence we can expect from the Palestinians; rather it exists because those pushing for the next withdrawal don't exactly stand by our side when we have to contend with the consequences.

Some of them are quick to accuse IDF soldiers of perpetrating a massacre; others don't hesitate to shake Israel off like a piece of dog feces stuck to the soles of their pristine shoes. This message has also been heard loud and clear, Ms. Portman.



Dr. Eitan Orkibi is a senior sociology and anthropology lecturer at Ariel University.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/what-we-learned-from-ms-portman/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

"Everyone Was Afraid to Be Branded as a Racist" - Natalia Osten-Sacken




by Natalia Osten-Sacken

I do not hate Muslims. I believe that this ideology is dangerous for all mankind. The Muslim community will also suffer under the Sharia." — Mona Walter, Swedish activist from Mogadishu, Somalia.

  • "If I speak about Islam, they interpret it as hating Muslims. But I do not hate Muslims. I believe that this ideology is dangerous for all mankind. The Muslim community will also suffer under the Sharia." — Mona Walter, Swedish activist from Mogadishu, Somalia.
  • "Jesus said we should love our enemies, but not that we should be stupid." — Mona Walter.
  • "I always say to my Christian friends, 'What do you think, what will happen to you if Islam becomes dominant here?'" — Mona Walter.
Mona Walter, age 45, is a Swedish activist from Mogadishu, Somalia. In the early 1990s, she fled as a refugee to Sweden. There, she abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity. The act resulted in criticism and death threats. The mainstream media consider her a person working for religious freedom. Other organizations accuse her of fueling anti-Islamic movements.


Mona Walter. (Image source: AlfaTV video screenshot)

Natalia Osten-Sacken: I have heard your statements stigmatizing Islam as an intolerant and hateful culture. If it is so, why did you not notice it in Somalia?

Mona Walter: In my country, we had our own African culture. People did not deal with religion so much. There was no Sharia, we had our own secular law. We came here as young, secular people. It is worth mentioning, that we belonged to the Sufi Sunni faction.

When I came from Somalia to Sweden, I experienced a huge clash of cultures, because Islam here is more extreme and fanatical than in my country. What is very important - we were Islamized after 1991, here in Sweden. In these closed areas, immigrant ghettos are deprived of democracy.

Islamized? By whom?

By imams. Some came from Somalia, but there are others who do the same in their own immigrant communities. They traveled to Saudi Arabia, they studied there and after they return, they became the heads of these areas. They control everything, and above all, women.

They preach Sharia in mosques and tell everyone that they must believe in this system and Islamic values. If you do not do it, if you try to integrate into the Western society, in their eyes you become an infidel.

They force women to cover their bodies. If you do not, you are regarded as a whore. When I first arrived in Sweden in 1994, we were forbidden to wear our African clothes, traditional Somali dresses. They forced it on us. They said that we were not real Muslims, that we were an infidel country because we had secular law.

Then why did the imams not radicalize Somalia?

In Somalia, extreme imams were put in prison, but here they do what they want. No one controls them, no one checks what they are doing. They build mosques, they take Swedish money. If you live in such a community, then you have no freedoms. This mainly applies to people who rejected Islam. They may even be killed for it -- such things have already happened here. Even I, after rejecting Islam, covered myself with a scarf, because I was so scared. All this is happening in Sweden, in a democratic country where they tell you that you have the right to your body, opinion, free choice of religion.

And what was the situation of women in your country? In one of the interviews, you mentioned that women do not visit mosques in Somalia.

Women are not taught religion, they do not have to do it. This is not prohibited, just unnecessary. In 1990, for the first time I saw people from Saudi Arabia or Egypt, all covered. Somalis ran after them, crying, "Look at that! Have they gone mad in this heat?!" We knew that women in Saudi Arabia cannot go out on the street alone without a man because of Sharia law.

Somalia was almost a "socialist" country -- women served in the police, army, they were teachers and worked in public places. Also, it is not true that you could have been raped with impunity. The family would kill a rapist or even a war could break out between two clans. It would be a shame for the whole family, no one would marry even a cousin of such a rapist. I think the woman's position was better than in those Muslim countries, where the victim is stoned.

Is it different in Europe?

They are not ashamed here. They would not do it in their own community, but they do it here to infidels, because they feel that no one is supporting these victims. Here, the rapists do not have to hide their face: no one will be ashamed of them. He will not get death punishment for such an act. Here, they feel free from their clan traditions.

Do you mean that breaking with the traditional culture of Somalia causes them to become prone to violence, as shown by examples from Denmark or Germany?

My culture has good and bad elements, and the bad is that it is a very brutal culture. Very proud and vengeful, even without the influence of Islam. When I follow criminal records, I see that the most crimes are not thefts or drugs, but violence. In our culture, children belong to parents as pets and are beaten when, for example, they do not want to pray or do not listen to their parents.

In my community, it happens quite often that girls and boys fall victim to rape from family members or a teacher of the religion. It also happens here in Sweden, and the family and the community are hiding it. These are common cases, but I am not saying that everyone does it. I tried to report it to the social welfare, but no one reacted - everyone was afraid to be branded a racist.

The second thing is the teachings they get in mosques, where they are told that they should hate unbelievers. Therefore, they also commit crimes caused by hate. Their parents do not want to integrate and do not allow them to integrate with kafirs (infidels). As almost all groups are influenced by Islam and their own culture, these are two poisons together.

But maybe they are doing it out of despair and lack of perspectives? They have no education and no choice?

There is a choice. The Swedish system supports people so much. You can learn, go to school, study, go to university, and some of us have succeeded. The people who chose education automatically chose a normal, good life. We cannot just wonder why Somali criminals are what they are; we must ask ourselves: why are they not like us?

Why do you think Islamic radicals in Europe are becoming more and more popular and active?

I do not think they are more active or popular than before, only now we have social media and you can see them. They have always been like that -- in mosques.

And we would not know about it?

You did not know -- you, the infidels. Muslims always knew. There is another issue here though -- there are more and more Muslims in Europe. In addition, children who were born in the 90s are now adults. They went to Islamic schools, were subjected to brainwashing, radicalization, and learned hate for Western society. This teaching begins, when they are three-four years old. For so many years now, I have often talked about it to the Swedish media, but no one was interested in dealing with it, because they were afraid to be called racists. I went to the social welfare and informed them about it and they said to me: "They will learn democracy in our schools". And they never checked these mosques. So now they are collecting the fruit of their behavior. The yield of the last 30 years has matured.

What solution do you see for Sweden and Europe? We cannot forbid the practice of any religion, even the most radical one; we have freedom of religion.

No, we cannot prohibit it, but we must understand that Islam is not a religion, it is a totalitarian system. We cannot treat it like any other religious faith. It forbids all other religions, freedom of speech, freedom of individual choice. It is the opposite of democracy. We must openly and honestly analyze this ideology, we must understand it.

We must not listen to the media: that Islam is a religion of peace. Do you know what it means? It means that peace will not prevail until people accept Islam as their religion. Peace will come when there will be no resistance and Islam and Sharia will dominate. Islam divides humanity into two "houses": a house of peace and a house of war. All of us, infidels and even liberal Muslims who do not accept sharia, are in the house of war.

Are there Muslims who integrate, do not want to introduce Sharia, and so on?

Remember -- we must separate Islam and sharia law from Muslims, because many of them are peaceful people and we cannot mix these two together. This is always mainstream media: if I speak about Islam, they interpret it as hating Muslims. But I do not hate Muslims. I believe that this ideology is dangerous for all mankind. The Muslim community will also suffer under the Sharia.

As a convert to Christianity, how would you rate the behavior of the Catholic Church, which recommends greater openness to immigration?

I heard the Pope preaching this and I was very disappointed -- because Islam and Christianity cannot be compared. Christians must imitate Jesus who preached love and mercy, even to his enemies; treating others as you would like to be treated. Meanwhile, Islam, and especially the Islamic State, do exactly what Muhammad did. And he let his followers kill and take wives as sex slaves. We cannot compare these two worlds. Again, I do not mean Christians and Muslims, but their ideologies are mismatched.

The creator of this ideology was a criminal, a warlord who said that killing people brings glory. How can we open borders for such an ideology? As we do not know who is coming to us, we must be very careful, especially since we see what happened to Christians in Muslim countries. I do not understand the attitude of the Pope and the Catholic Church, who should care primarily about their members.

The Pope is no longer a Christian leader, but a politician and activist of human rights. He is no longer the head of the Church working for the good of Christianity and I do not see him as my guide. What I see when I look at him is a leftist politician. Jesus said we should love our enemies, but not that we should be stupid.

Is there something wrong in the dialogue with Islam that the Church and politicians have in common?

Politicians, church and Islam need each other. They also never speak -- the leaders and the Pope -- about the massacre of Christians in Africa and Syria. They do not criticize Islam, because they do not want to lose electoral votes. The church does not want to lose the support of the politicians. I also have the impression, that some are already extremely busy building a bridge to Islam, but they do not see that Islam burns it, that it is impossible to build a bridge only from one side. Why is Islam not building bridges in relations between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East? Because they are there the majority and have power. I always say to my Christian friends, "What do you think, what will happen to you if Islam becomes dominant here?"

Why do you think the politicians do it?

It is about money and votes. Some immigrants can be used as cheap workforce, where the locals do not want to work for the same pay. However, we must take into account that most of the immigrants do not work; there is no work for them. There is no work for uneducated people and most immigrants do not have higher education.

Many do not even have basic skills. It would take a long time to educate them. The government told the Swedes that immigrants would work for their retirement, but with time the Swedes realized that it was not true. First, immigrants will have a lot of children, a woman will never go to work -- which is also compatible with this culture -- and her husband probably will not get a job, even if he tries. Even if they wanted to learn, it would be a time-consuming process. However, why should they start at all if they receive a lot of money for doing nothing anyway? Still, they will vote for a person who will provide them with all the benefits.

So do you think that we should not help them?

Of course we should, but in the place of their origin. People keep telling me, "How can you say such things, if you are an immigrant yourself?" But I am not a danger for people living here. Many of the newcomers would cut off my head. I escaped from the Sharia regime in the Swedish suburbs and I do not wish to have it everywhere in the country. I am not against people, but the ideology, that they bring with them. And besides, we can help them there more efficiently for the same money.

Or maybe they will just convert to Christianity as you did? There is a trend, that many immigrants in Europe, Austria, Germany and Great Britain are turning to Christianity.

I think it is a scam. We talked about it in our church community. We found out that priests are extremely naive. If the immigrants receive a negative response from the asylum office, some of them run immediately to the church and say, "I am a Christian, if I return home, I will be killed." Some even get baptized. But once they achieve the necessary document, they go back to their Muslim community and their mosque.

I talked about it in the church, but I was told that this is a big problem, because they cannot reject people they do not know -- maybe they are telling the truth. But what do they do after receiving such a document? Currently, our church is full of Afghan boys. I said in my church clearly: in Islam you can lie to save yourself.

Do you think there is a chance to reform Islam?

No, I do not believe in it. I know that some people, for instance Ayaan Hirsi Ali, believe in this, but how can you reform God? The Koran is God's Word. The reform that the liberal Muslims believe in would only be possible if Islamic leaders wanted to reform and change Islam. It cannot come from individuals. It is also important not to make a mistake. Reformation in Christianity meant returning to the source, relying on the Scriptures. Applying this criterion, Islam has already been "reformed" by Wahhabism and Salafism. It means returning to the original sources and traditions of ancestors -- but this is probably not what we want?

Natalia Osten-Sacken,a doctor of science, is a freelance journalist at euroislam.pl. Her interviews are published at Wirtualna Polska

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12065/mona-walter-interview

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Germany: Migrant Crisis Delusions - Vijeta Uniyal




by Vijeta Uniyal

A report commissioned by the German government found that newly-arrived asylum seekers were behind more than 90% percent of the increase in violent crimes in the state of Lower Saxony.

  • A report commissioned by the German government found that newly-arrived asylum seekers were behind more than 90% percent of the increase in violent crimes in the state of Lower Saxony.
  • As of December 2017, an estimated 600,000 able-bodied asylum seekers in Germany were on the welfare dole, according to Die Welt. "More than half of the able-bodied unemployment benefit receivers at present are of foreign descent," wrote Der Spiegel on April 10, 2018.
  • Meanwhile, poverty in Germany, especially among elderly pensioners, has reached a historic high.
While the number of Salafists in Germany reaches a record high and machete-wielding gangs riot on the country's streets, the establishment media not only covers up the fallout from Chancellor Angela Merkel's open door migration policy, but continues to paint a false picture of the country's current state.

"Cool Germany," a cover story on Britain's magazine, The Economist, claims that, "Germany is becoming more open and diverse" and "[m]any of the country's defining traits" including "its ethnic and cultural homogeneity, conformist and conservative society" are "suddenly in flux."

The Economist attributes this change to Chancellor Merkel's migrant policy. "The biggest change comes from Mrs. Merkel's "open door" policy towards refugees, which brought in 1.2 million new migrants in 2015-16. The magazine celebrates the sudden outburst of diversity as its transforms "once-homogeneous Germany" into a "melting-pot" and claims that the "patriarchal culture has become more gender-balanced."

The Economist also advocates the urgent necessity of the open-door policy for refugees, and alleges that the "flow of newcomers to Germany" will "cushion the demographic crunch."

Since the onset of the migrant crisis, which began in the autumn of 2015, much of the mainstream media has been peddling the idea of an influx of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Arab and Muslim countries as a silver bullet for Europe's economic woes. Young and sturdy immigrants were going to bolster Europe's shrinking labor force and usher in the next economic boom, a miracle comparable to Germany's post-war Wirtschaftswunder ("economic miracle").

"Refugees to pay our pension," an editorial headline the newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau in February 2016 promised. The migrant "influx ensures rejuvenation that is so urgently needed" and the refugees "will soon pay into our public welfare system," the newspaper pledged.

"The German business community views the recent influx of refugees as an opportunity to help companies grow and ensure long term prosperity," the Der Spiegel reported in its August 2015, issue, just ahead of Merkel's decision to open the country's borders to mass migration. "The business community urgently needs workers," it added.

"What the refugees bring to us is more valuable than gold," said Martin Schulz, Merkel's main political rival and the leader of Germany's Social Democrats (SPD).

"Many [migrants] are in integration courses or waiting to get in them. So I think we will need to show some patience," Merkel said in September 2016.

Unfortunately, these claims and assurances now seem like nothing more than liberal pipe-dreams to push through a pro-immigration policy in Germany.

Instead of lining up to join the German workforce, as the political elite and most of the media were asking us to believe, these young immigrant men, in the hundreds of thousands, took refuge in the Germany's generous welfare system.


German Chancellor Angela Merkel poses for a selfie with Anas Modamani, a migrant from Syria, outside a shelter for migrants in Berlin, on September 10, 2015. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

"More than half of the able-bodied unemployment benefit receivers at present are of foreign descent," Der Spiegel reported on April 10, 2018. "According to latest numbers complied in September 2017, out of 4.3 million able-bodied welfare recipients, 55.2% were of an immigrant background. In 2013, that figure was 43%."

As of December 2017, an estimated 600,000 able-bodied asylum seekers in Germany were on the dole, the newspaper Die Welt revealed in December, 2017. For the first time in post-war German history, the number of foreigners living on unemployment benefits has crossed the 2-million-mark.

All this has happened, moreover, at time when poverty, especially among elderly pensioners, reached a historic high. Under Merkel's watch, nearly 20% of Germans are threatened by poverty, according to the German Federal Statistical Office. The current level of poverty is "higher than ever since the unification of the Federal Republic and the [Communist] German Democratic Republic," the German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported.

Contrary to what the establishment media would have people believe, there is no evidence that the hundreds of thousands of young migrant men pouring into Germany are going to relieve the country's aging work force or become productive citizens in other ways.

Not only are these newly arrived immigrants a strain on Germany's finances, but since their arrival, there has been a surge across the country in violent crime. A recent report commissioned by the German Ministry of Family Affairs found that the newly arrived asylum seekers were behind more than 90% percent of the increase in violent crimes in the northern state of Lower Saxony. Similar trends can be witnessed throughout the country.

According to the country's annual crime report of 2017, compiled by the Federal Crime Bureau (BKA), Germany saw a 50% year-on-year rise in migrant crimes. This tiny but growing minority, that presently makes up less than 2% of the German population, was charged for nearly 15% of all violent crimes, such as rapes and aggravated assaults, the BKA report revealed.

In March, Turkish and Arab gangs "armed with machetes, clubs and baseball bats" clashed on German streets in violent attempts to demarcate gang territories. The country is also in the grip of a stabbing epidemic, with the attackers often turning out to be "unaccompanied minors" holding refugee status.

While media outlets such as The Economist are busy touting Merkel's Germany as "model for the West" for its newly-acquired "diversity," the country is sinking ever deeper into a social, economic and demographic bog. With their collective heads buried in sand, many in the establishment and the media seem to want the rest of the Western world to follow Germany's example by opening their borders to unregulated mass immigration. Sadly, the current result of Germany's open-door policy indicates that all those rosy reports seem to have been nothing more than an elaborate campaign of deceit or misinformation.

Vijeta Uniyal, a journalist and news analyst, is based in Germany.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12182/germany-migrants-coverup

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.