Trump vs. the “Islamic Conquest of the West”

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke1/30/17
The irrational left, which means virtually all the left, is apoplectic over President Trump’s executive order halting immigration from terrorist-spawning countries. Its minions are complaining that the move is “un-American,” which in their world apparently involves playing Russian roulette with American lives.

The New York Times just ran a teary-eyed piece lamenting “immediate collateral damage imposed on people who, by all accounts, had no sinister intentions in trying to come to the United States,” as the paper put it. The fake news is right there — “by all accounts” — slipped in casually in the hope the reader will slide by it unthinkingly. In reality, there are many people, from intelligence experts to politicians to social commentators to Muslims themselves, warning that there’s no way to truly know these people’s “intentions.”

One of the most striking reports on this front — both because of its content and how the Fake News (mainstream) Media ignored it — was an October 2015 Glazov Gang interview with Dr. Mudar Zahran, a leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition now living as a refugee in Britain. While calling himself an “orthodox Muslim,” he nonetheless issued an eyebrow-raising warning:

Keep the Muslim migrants out of Europe.

What’s more, he insists that they must be returned to their native lands.

While Europe was the focus at the time (as the destination of most Mideast migrants), Zahran’s warnings absolutely apply to the US. And what he says is troubling: Many if not most of the migrants are not what they appear (video below).

First, we’d always been told the issue was Syrian refugees uprooted by their nation’s civil war. Yet Zahran stated that many of the Muslim newcomers aren’t even Syrian.

The proof is in the pudding, too. When we read stories about migrants committing crimes — rape, murder, a terrorist act or something else — the perpetrators generally are Afghani, Moroccan, Tunisian, Iraqi, Somali or some other nationality that doesn’t happen to be Syrian. This is just casually mentioned in the reportage’s “who” aspect, and the relevant question doesn’t occur to most readers.

What the heck are these non-Syrian migrants doing in the West when the “refugee” scheme was sold to Westerners with a “help the Syrians” message?

The next part of the con, states Zahran, is that “75 percent of those arriving from Syria come from safe area[s]” because the Syrians “in disaster areas cannot … leave.” But it gets worse. He also asserts that half the Syrian male migrants “have actually held weapons and fought in the Syrian war.”

Then there are the truly malevolent fakefugees. As Zahran put it, “I can authoritively [sic] confirm — I have photos, I have images, I have pictures, I have names of terrorists who actually are already in Europe posting their photos in Europe on Facebook.”

This warning has been echoed by other Muslim figures as well. Also in 2015, Lebanese Education Minister Elias Bou Saab warned that 20,000 jihadis likely lurk in his country’s refugee camps, and Syrian ambassador Riad Abbas claimed that 20 percent of Muslim migrants entering Europe had Islamic State (IS) ties.

How these miscreants could penetrate the West brings us to the third part of the con: Despite leftist claims to the contrary, there is no way to reliably vet the Muslim migrants.

First, nations such as Syria simply don’t have comprehensive, Western-style databases containing information on their citizens. Intelligence officials have acknowledged this, as has the Greek government and even former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. As Investor’s Business Daily put it in 2015, “Syria and Iraq, along with Somalia and Sudan, are failed states where police records aren’t even kept. Agents can’t vet somebody if they don’t have documentation and don’t even have the criminal databases to screen applicants.”

Moreover, what good would the data be, anyway? As NYC Syrian community leader Aarafat “Ralph” Succar pointed out in 2015 while warning of IS infiltration in the US, you can bribe Syrian public officials and get government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be. Said he, “You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” reported the New York Post.

As for the notion these migrants can be vetted, Succar has a simple response: “[A]re you out of your mind?”

Yet even if we could weed out the fakefugees, it wouldn’t matter because vetting informs only about what migrants are, not what they will become or what their children will be. This is relevant not only because radicalization often occurs in the West itself, but because studies show that younger generations of Muslims in the West are actually more jihadist-minded than their elders. “Islam is the problem,” as I recently wrote — the gift that keeps on giving.

And the calculation is simple: If one million Muslim migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of one percent are or will become terrorists, that’s 1,000 dangerous jihadists. Are you willing to bet, your life, that this estimate is liberal and not conservative?

Yet as dangerous as terrorists are, there’s a bigger picture here, a deeper con being perpetrated by the Arab world via the mass migrations. As Zahran warned, “I have to be honest; you read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers [and] they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

Zahran called this process “the soft Islamic conquest of the West” and noted that what Muslims “couldn’t do in the last 20 years, now the West is doing for us for free — and even [is] paying for it.”

The last part of the migration con concerns why leftists “care” so much about fakefugees. Not only is there the ego-driven ideological imperative of preserving their multiculturalist dogma, but consider: The vast majority of U.S. Muslims now vote Democrat, with Obama having gotten 89 and 85 percent of their votes in, respectively, 2008 and 2012. In contrast, pious, church-going Christians favor Republicans by wide margins.

Now note that while Christians are 10 percent of Syria’s population and are being targeted for extermination by IS, only one half of one percent of the “Syrian” migrants admitted under Obama were Christian. Compassion? Does the Left really care about these migrants’ lives?

Or just their future votes?

Whatever the case, the treasonous — or, as some would say, “internationalist” — alt-left often speaks about redistributing the wealth. They clearly don’t mind spreading the terrorism around, either. Why not? The West won’t long feel compelled to send soldiers to the Middle East if we bring enough of the Middle East to the West.

More Muslims have arrived in the US just since 9/11 than did so during our nation’s entire history leading up to it. This, the handiwork of the left, has already resulted in hundreds more Westerners dying in jihadist attacks. How much more blood do you liberals want on your hands?


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (463 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Trump vs. the “Islamic Conquest of the West”

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The high proportion of young men among the “refugees” (especially in Europe) indicates that this is more an invasion than a flight. Of course, invasion can take many forms, and in the US their votes for the party that implicitly supports jihadism (or refuses to oppose it adequately, anyway) can be significant. And wherever they go, rapes go up, Jews are driven out one way or another by the rise of anti-Semitism, and there is an increased threat of terrorism not only where they are but wherever they can easily reach. And it’s easy to get around either in Europe or America.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I agree about the invasion aspect. I assert the following:

      1) There is a conscious plan by the powers-that-be in Islam to invade the West, using our own suicidal policies of “multiculturalism” and “diversity” as convenient methods to use against us.

      2) Both Leftism and Islam are incompatible with open, vibrant, peaceful, freedom-based societies.

      Perhaps the real tragedy isn’t so much that we can’t keep the Muslims out but that we can’t kick the Leftists out.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Perhaps the real tragedy isn’t so much that we can’t keep the Muslims out but that we can’t kick the Leftists out.

        I might almost agree to a deal whereby for every “refugee” from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, etc which was admitted to the USA, one leftist was sent to the country from which the refugee came. The question would then be, “which group is doing the greatest harm to their new country?”

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Hmmm….that might indeed be a trade worth considering, Mr. Kung. I think we’ve discussed before the idea of: For every one south-of-the-border illegal alien that we let stay, we kick out a welfare king or queen. I don’t hate hispanics. I just hate free-loaders. And I’d be glad to trade a hard-working Mexican for a native loafer.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    More Muslims have arrived in the US just since 9/11 than did so during our nation’s entire history leading up to it. This, the handiwork of the left,

    Not only the left. What about that idiot George W. Bush? How about John McCain and Lindsey Graham? Plenty of Republicans have taken part in this insanity.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes. It’s the handiwork of the globalists/transnationalists of both parties. The difference is that ideological liberals are almost unanimous in their globalism, whereas the GOP still has a lot of opponents to one degree or another.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Despite leftist claims to the contrary, there is no way to reliably vet the Muslim migrants.

    To give you an idea of what vetting entails, let me relate a little about my wife’s story.

    When we applied for a permit for my wife to become a permanent resident of the USA, we had been married for 14 years and she was the wife and mother of American citizens. Nevertheless, she had to provide police reports from every country she had ever lived in. As she was Singaporean, she had to request such a report from the Singaporean authorities. But my wife had studied in Australia so she had to request the same information from the Australian authorities. Oh wait, we had also lived in Japan and Hong Kong, so she had to send off for records from those places as well.

    As you can imagine, it took some months before she received the requested documents.

    We then had to personally take these documents, along with the other documents required by the US government for immigration, to the American Embassy in Singapore, her home country.

    In fact, it was much more complicated and costly to finally obtain permanent residence for my wife, but I will not go into all the details.

    Suffice it to say that real vetting is costly in time and money. Getting to the USA also costs money. The government doesn’t pay for your flight.

    I am confident those “refugees” who the left claims are being vetted are complete “unknowns.”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Thanks for sharing your real-world experience, Mr. Kung. That is so helpful and necessary, especially as a counter-balance to the hysteria by the Nazis of Nice.

  4. joetote says:

    The President has handled this correctly as one can in fact argue this is an invasion from people who hate this country

    8 U.S. CODE ss 1182
    Inadmissible aliens

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem appropriate

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      No argument from me. In fact, I don’t think Trump went far enough. But I’ll not make perfect the enemy of good. He did the right thing. NRO has an article about how it wasn’t implemented as smartly as it could be. And maybe so. But then I imagine they would have nit-picked anything. He got the ball rolling. This is what was needed. They can refine the rough edges, if need be, later.

      And NRO or anyone else hopefully understands that even a perfectly-implement policy by their standards would still produce a shitstorm of protest from The Nazis of Nice.

  5. Anniel says:

    Duke,

    It never ceases to amaze me that the people with the most “blood on their hands”, are the very ones who think they will pay no price for their treasonous perfidy. Can they really be this dumb? Answer, yes, they can.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    This seems as good a place as any to mention some of my conclusions from the most recent liberal riots (UCB and NYU). First, we should note that the rioters and their allies among the protesters have called this a war, and an increasing number of liberals seem to be unwilling to make a clear condemnation of such events. More and more of them defend this violence against “Nazis”. Of course, even actual Nazis have their rights (as the ACLU proclaimed over 30 years ago when they defended their right to have a march through Skokie, heavily populated by Jewish Holocaust survivors), and so do those who are called Nazis because they disagree with leftism.

    This might remind many of us of the famous distinction between a moderate and a radical Muslim. The radical wants to kill us; the moderate wants the radical to kill us. Increasingly, we see the same thing with liberals: the extreme left engages in riots to suppress dissent, and the moderate left implicitly supports them (and cheers them and their successes, as happened in Berkeley). So it seems to me that we should proclaim the riots starting January 20 (and perhaps earlier) as the beginning of a liberal jihad against conservatism and the GOP. Their affinity for Muslim jihadists is now at zenith; perhaps they’ll deploy suicide bombers soon.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    I’ve encountered a lot of further information on James Robart, the professional liberal judge who issued the Washington stay on the executive order, and his decision. He was indeed a Bush appointee, but in reality he is and was a staunch radical forced on him by Petty Murray using the senatorial courtesy known as a “blue slip” — in essence, she rejected any non-radical judge back in 2004 until she got one she wanted. He has a past history of radical rulings and statements (e.g., endorsing Black Shakedowns Matter). His ridiculous ruling has been criticized by many liberals who like the result, but have noticed that he was rather vague about why he felt the EO was unconstitutional. He cited no precedents for his ruling. Even the lunatic 9th Circus might overturn his actions.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Further proof that the hoi polloi simply don’t know what is good for them.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

    It is notable that those with a higher education are less resistant to Muslim immigration. They would probably claim it is because they are more intelligent and more educated. I would suggest this is the result of more indoctrination at the hands of the education establishment which is generally leftist.

    There is an evil alliance between the internationalist left and globalist big business interests to bring about the end of Western Civilization. It must be fought, tooth and nail.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ayn Rand had a similar view of higher education 60 years ago, as can be seen by various comments in Atlas Shrugged. For example, the corrupt (but observant) labor union leader Fred Kinnan points out that intellectuals had played key roles in converting Europe into “people’s states”. Radicalism is an common intellectual disease; indeed, Bakunin had referred to Marxism as a pedantocracy. Their basic error is to exalt theory and ignore reality, and I suspect this comes easiest for residents of ivory towers.

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    For anyone interested in foreign relations, this is an excellent article giving an idea as to what type of foreign policy Trump needs to develop. Being a Kissingerian in most cases, I find little in the piece to disagree with. In fact, the author says many things which I have advocated, given the international situation in which we find ourselves.

    It will be difficult to pull off, but if sentiment is ignored, as it should be in foreign policy, Trump could be a major player in setting the future course of the international order for decades to come.

    It is a long piece.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-new-world-order/

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A lot of interesting material there, including the TR view that loyalty to America must transcend any other loyalty — something Islamism forbids. For that matter, so does liberalism today; indeed, they probably feel less loyalty to America than most American Muslims do. It’s hard to see the Putin alliance agreeing to let Assad go, even with an idea such as a cantonal Syria. Nor is anything that helps Iran likely to be a good idea. (It occurs to me that Obama’s preference for them may have come from their being “revolutionary Iran”.)

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    If anyone doubts there is a concerted effort to distort Trump’s potential relations with Russia, I suggest they click the following link and read the attached article.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html

    The piece makes it sound as if the Russian test of this missile is something new. In fact, the missile in question is based on an old design and it was successfully tested, which everyone knew, in early 2015. Why the outcry now?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As long as the Demagogues expected to remain in charge, they could do their usual nothing about Putin (well, Slick Barry was willing to use some mildly harsh words to Tsar Vladimir the Putrid, as long as no one took him seriously). But now that Trump would like to work with him (which is what Feckless Leader wanted to do, but was too weak to accomplish), they’re posturing as hawks. And if Trump ends up getting tough? “Oceania is at war with Eastasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *