Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Islamisation of the Olympic Games.

August 24, 2016
|
Anne Marie Waters

‘One world, one anthem’. So goes the advert from electronics giant Samsung for the recent Olympic Games in Rio. “Through our unity and harmony”, it declares, “we’ll remain at peace as one”. It would be lovely, but it isn’t going to happen. Necessary for their promotion of internationalism, the globalists continue to tell The Big Lie: that we are all alike, we all want to live in peace, and we all seek to inhabit a world of harmony and tolerance. (So why not bring down the borders? Think of all the cheap labour).

The internationalist happy-clappy establishment was all over the Olympic games as one might expect, and as one might expect, happy-clappy was abruptly interrupted, as are all attempts at global harmony, by an aggressive and intolerant religion that will only become happy-clappy when everyone adheres to its rule. The appeasement of Islam was made a priority in Rio because only to appease this bully, thereby minimising its negative contribution, can we keep The Big Lie alive. It is therefore inevitable that the Islamisation of the Olympic Games takes place, just like it does everywhere else.

How do you recognise Islamisation? Two things are essential – primitive fear of a woman’s body, as well as hate and contempt for all things Jewish. The Islamisation of the Olympics of course heavily features both. The icing on the Islamising cake is not simply the acceptance of appalling behaviour, but its celebration. We must celebrate because only by celebrating can we avoid all the problems that come with disapproval. We don’t want to spend the Olympics arguing about religious sensitivity, so it’s easier to just let Islam do its thing – more peaceful even.

The Washington Post reported mid-Olympics on the “shocking” hostility towards Israeli athletes by Muslims at the Games.  On this occasion, the left-wing was unable to blame open Jew-hatred on the ‘far-Right’, and so Muslim anti-Semitism was exposed.

The most controversial incident involved a bus occupied by Lebanese athletes, but intended also for Israelis. The head of the Lebanese delegation, already on the bus, physically prevented Israelis from boarding. An Israeli athlete described it on his Facebook page: “The bus driver opened the door, but this time the head of the Lebanese delegation blocked the aisle and entrance. The organizers wanted to avoid an international and physical incident and sent us away to a different bus.” That’s right, in order to prevent Muslim anti-Semitism becoming an international incident, Muslim anti-Semitism was accommodated, and the Jews were sent away on a special bus just for them. The head of the Lebanese delegation received a “reprimand” for his efforts.  That’ll show ‘im.

Then we have the Saudi athlete (who shouldn’t even have been there because her country should be barred from all international events on account of being the world’s leading medieval savage), who forfeited a judo match against an Israeli, claiming to have injured herself. There was no such claim from Ala Ghasoun though, a Syrian (remember, Syrians should all be welcomed West with open arms) who refused to fight an Israeli in the qualifiers because doing so “would mean that I, as an athlete, and Syria, as a state, recognize the state of Israel.”

Now the misogyny – Islamisation can’t take place without it.  While the treatment of Israeli athletes by Muslim anti-Semites was appeased, the inclusion in the Games of primitive Islamic notions about women was overtly celebrated.

Nothing is rejoiced more by the human rights brigade, or what now passes for feminism, than the covering up of women’s bodies. The concealing of temptresses is the new feminism. Needless to say, the Olympics embraced this new feminism with full gusto, because if it didn’t, there’d be trouble.

Egyptian athlete Doaa Elghobashy for example competed in beach volleyball while covered from head to toe in Islamic coverings. “I have worn the hijab for 10 years,” said Elghobashy “it doesn’t keep me away from the things I love to do, and beach volleyball is one of them”. One suspects it would keep her away from fewer things if she didn’t wear it, but that doesn’t appear to be an option. Instead, we must celebrate just how many wonderful things an Egyptian woman can do while she declares other women “immodest”. Keep in mind that 99% of Egyptians suffer sexual harassment in their lives, whether covered or not. None of this is relevant though, because Islam is involved. All those years of work to stop sex assaults being blamed on “immodesty” go straight out the window - because Islam says so and we must all go along with it or there might be trouble.

There was further celebration in track and field when Afghan and Saudi women ran in hijabs.  ‘History is made’ declared some, as if accommodating crazed misogyny and bringing it right in to the mainstream is a form of progress.  It is the opposite, but we can’t say so because Islam is involved and there might be trouble.

One of the most disturbing realities of life is that bullying works. Our elite continues to pretend that we are all coming together in a global utopia, but Islamic bullying just keeps ruining the party. Islam demands special treatment and supremacy, and gets it. Internationalism can only cope with Islamic brutality if it pretends such a thing does not exist. Acceptance of violent theocracy, we are told, is tolerance, inclusion, respect. At the UN, vicious theocracies like Saudi Arabia, which ought to be shunned by all decent people, are not only allowed to continue their barbarism, but this barbarism is actively disguised by allowing such countries to sit on boards advocating rights they don’t believe in or practice. This occurs while resolution after resolution is passed condemning the tiny democracy of Israel.

That is how internationalism works, the biggest bully at the table must be appeased or the whole thing comes crashing down. They appease at the UN, in the EU, in countries all over the world, and of course at the Olympic Games. The obvious Islamisation of our world, in order to pacify its nastiest bully, is continuing unabated.



UK: 1 Million Failed Asylum Seekers Clog London – Only 1 in 20 Deported

UK: 1 Million Failed Asylum Seekers Clog London – Only 1 in 20 Deported



UK Judge Speaks Out: ‘Country Can’t Cope’, More Than 1 Million Illegal Immigrants May Be In London Alone

GettyImages-468322185 (1)
by Donna Rachel Edmunds
Brietbart, 22 Aug 2016

As few as one in twenty failed asylum seekers are being deported by authorities after having their applications turned down, an asylum judge in Britain has revealed. Consequently, there may be as many as one million illegal immigrants living in London alone.

Three million migrants are thought to be arriving in Europe each year, according to the judge, who has had to remain anonymous as speaking out without the express permission of the Home Office contravenes their rules.

“Can Europe really sustain three million people coming to its shores every year?” he asks, in an article for the Mail on Sunday.

Whilst acknowledging that some cases are deserving, the judge admits that the vast majority of cases which come before him are not.

“[T]o describe [those who need our support] as a minority of those who appear before me is a tragic understatement because the truth is that the great majority of the claimants at my tribunals are not attempting to escape persecution at all. They are economic migrants, pure and simple,” he says.
He adds: “The discrepancy between the official figures and what is actually going down the pipes shows there are a million more people in London than are legally registered, and another half a million more outside the capital”.

Speaking of the cultural shift, he says: “[S]ome of the stories told to me and my fellow judges beggar belief. Take the example of the middle-aged woman from West Africa who claimed that she was escaping from a grandmother threatening her with female genital mutilation (FGM).

“Now FGM is a horrific practice that is carried out on millions of young girls but never – according to my investigations – on very mature women. Especially not by their elderly grandmothers.
“As for Afghan asylum seekers, most of them that come here are underage children sent on by their parents. The Government automatically gives them temporary leave to stay. Then, as soon as they reach 18 and are ordered home, they claim asylum.

“Then there are those who claim the right to a family life, which is the last resort of the rascal in my opinion.

“A colleague of mine had before him the case of a Muslim from Asia who had lived here for years with a wife and children, and then went back to his country of birth to marry three other wives, as he is allowed to do under Islamic law, and had more children.

“Those later children then claimed British nationality, even though we don’t recognise polygamy in our marriage laws, and the mothers also claimed the right to come over here with the children on the basis of a right to family life. That obligation was imposed on the UK Government by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right.

“Astounding as it might seem to you or to me, they were successful on appeal.
In fact, the vast majority of claimants appear to be successful on appeal – or adept at avoiding deportation.

“I was in no way surprised by last week’s government figures showing that thousands of false and retrospective asylum claims are clogging up the system, because I have seen this with my own eyes,” the judge continues.

“[O]nly a tiny proportion, between five and ten per cent of the people I recommend for removal, are ever taken from these shores.”

The result is an immigration system which is completely out of control.
“Our population is growing at the fastest rate for nearly a century, at around half a million people a year,” the judge says. “It has been suggested this means building the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool every year.

“There is a practical limit to tolerance. The British public will not put up with housing all who come here.

“You can be as liberal as you like about the issue, but it has a big impact on our poorer communities where resources are scarce and there is competition for jobs and housing.

“Those champions of freedom of immigration tend to live privileged lives away from the problems of overcrowded schools and surgeries. Their children are not going to schools where they are the only ones who speak English and the others have to have lessons that hold everyone in the class back by several years.”

The answer, the judge says, essentially boils down to political will.

“As it happens, I am politically liberal. But neither Left or Right are honest about the problem.
“The Conservatives do not want to spend the necessary money sorting it out, while New Labour under Tony Blair helped create the mess by realising that migration, legal and illegal, is a source of cheap labour to boost the economy.

“In addition, most on the Left are too fearful of being considered racist if they criticise immigration levels.”

On a practical level, the judge recommends two keys policy strands to combat runaway immigration: helping the countries of origin to grow economically, reducing the pull to Britain, and taking a much tougher line on illegal immigration at home, including handing more resources to the border authorities.

“North African countries, for instance, need access to European markets; they need developed economies and a decent life for their citizens. Until that happens, those false claimants we do manage to remove will continue to return.

“But there are measures we can take in the short term, too. I would like to see us going back to the old system of questioning people about their claims as soon as they arrive.

“That was stopped after the EU ruled that it was too traumatic to question people immediately.
“I question the automatic right of people to live here permanently by marrying a British national or by having a child with a British national. Too many of these arrangements are short-lived.
“We should clamp down still further on the black market in labour that allows illegals to stay below the radar.

“And, of course, we need to give the Borders Agency adequate resources and real political backing so that when my fellow judges and I decide that a claim is false – and, remember, this undermines those in genuine need – our rulings are met with action.

“We are lucky that Britain is an island with its own natural barrier, but at the moment immigration judges like me are presiding over an impossible situation.”


Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Anti-Israel Double Standards Enable Assad's Brutality


Steven Emerson, Executive Director
August 23, 2016

Anti-Israel Double Standards Enable Assad's Brutality

by Noah Beck
Special to IPT News
August 23, 2016
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Syria's civil war claimed 470,000 lives since it started in March 2011, the Syrian Centre for Policy Research announced in February. That's an average of about 262 deaths per day and 7,860 per month. The carnage has continued unabated, so, applying the same death rate nearly 200 days after the February estimate, the death toll is over 520,000.
Such numbers are staggering, even by Middle East standards. However, the violence has become so routine that it only occasionally captures global attention, usually when a particularly poignant moment of human suffering is documented. The most recent example is Omran Daqneesh, a 5-year old Syrian boy who was filmed shell-shocked, bloody, and covered in dust after the airstrike bombing of his Aleppo apartment block.
The tragic image of Omran caused outrage around the world, as did the image of Aylan Kurdi, the drowned Syrian boy whose body washed up last September on a beach in Turkey. Yet Omran's plight demonstrates that, nearly a year after the last child victim of Syrian horrors captured global sympathy, nothing has changed.
If anything, the violence in this multi-party proxy war seems to be getting worse. Since Aylan Kurdi's drowning, Russia began blitz-bombing Syria in support of the Assad regime. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) estimates that nine months of Russian airstrikes have killed 3,089 civilians – a toll that is greater, by some estimates, than the number of civilians killed by ISIS. By contrast, Syrian civilian deaths caused by U.S. airstrikes are probably in the hundreds (over roughly twice as much time, since U.S. airstrikes began in the summer of 2015).
But Syrian airstrikes are responsible for the bulk of civilian deaths in Syria. The Assad regime killed 109,347 civilians between March 2011 and July 2014 (88 percent of the total casualties at the time), according to estimates by the Syrian Network for Human Rights. That works out to about 91 civilian deaths per day. More recently, the SOHR documented 9,307 civilian deaths from 35,775 regime airstrikes over a 20-month period running from November 2014 through June 2016. Thus, roughly one innocent Syrian was killed every hour, during the 20 months that the SOHR documented civilian casualties caused by Russian and Syrian airstrikes.
Compare those figures to the number of innocent Palestinians killed by Israel from 2011 to 2014. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has been accused of anti-Israel bias, 37 Palestinians were killed in 2011, 103 in 2012, 15 in 2013 and 1,500 in 2014 – the year when Hamas fired rockets at Israel from highly populated Gazan areas. That's a four-year total of 1,655. During roughly the same four-year period, the number of Syrian civilian deaths was about 76 times greater than the HRW total of Palestinian civilian casualties.
Yet the European Union singles out Israel for conflict-related consumer labels without any similar attempt to warn European consumers about goods or services whose consumption in any way helps the economies of countries responsible for the Syrian bloodshed, including Syria, Russia, and Iran. Human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky has highlighted how none of those countries is targeted by those advocating a boycott of Israel out of a purported concern for human rights. Even more absurd, most of the results produced by a Google search for "academic boycott of Syria" or "academic boycott of Iran" concern academic boycotts of Israel. That asymmetry precisely captures the problem.
In addition to supporting the Assad regime in Syria and contributing to the violence there, Iran executes people for everything from drug offenses to being gay.
Indeed, the global outcry over Syrian suffering is embarrassingly weak when compared to reactions to Israel's far less bloody conflict with the Palestinians. Imagine if Omran Daqneesh had been a Palestinian boy hurt by an Israeli airstrike on Gaza. College campus protests, the media, NGOs, and world bodies around the planet would be positively on fire. Israeli embassies would be attacked, French synagogues would be firebombed (eight were attacked in just one week during Israel's 2014 war with Gaza), Jews around the world would be attacked, and condemnations would pour in from the EU, the United Nations, and the Obama administration. UN resolutions and emergency sessions would condemn the incident. International investigations would be demanded. Global blame would deluge Israel, regardless of whether Hamas, a terrorist organization, actually started the fighting or used human shields to maximize civilian deaths. Israel would be obsessively demonized despite any risky and unprecedented measures the Israeli military might have taken to minimize civilian casualties.
Moreover, when an occasional Syrian victim captures global attention, the protests are generally for some vague demand for "peace" in Syria, rather than blaming and demanding the punishment of Syria, Iran, and Russia, even though those regimes are clearly responsible for the slaughter. The starkly different reactions to Israel and Syria are even more shocking when it comes to the United Nations.
From its 2006 inception through August 2015, 62 United Nations Human Rights Council resolutions condemned Israel, compared to just 17 for Syria, five for Iran, and zero for Russia, according to the watchdog group UN Watch. The lopsided focus on Israel is equally appalling at the UN General Assembly, as UN Watch has highlighted. In each of the last four years, as the Syrian bloodbath claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, there were at least five times as many resolutions condemning Israel as those rebuking the rest of the world:
2012: 22 against Israel, 4 for the rest of the world
2013: 22 against Israel, 4 for the rest of the world
2014: 20 against Israel, 3 for the rest of the world
2015: 20 against Israel, 3 for the rest of the world
A corollary of the anti-Israel bias ensures that no Israeli victim will ever enjoy the kind of global sympathy expressed for Omran Daqneesh or Aylan Kurdi. When a Palestinian man enters the bedroom of a 13-year old girl and stabs her to death in her sleep, Obama says nothing even though she was a U.S. citizen and the world hardly notices. By contrast, imagine if the Israeli father of Hallel Yaffa Ariel had decided to take revenge by entering a nearby Palestinian home to stab a 13-year old Palestinian girl to death in her sleep. The global anger would be deafening.
Why do Israeli lives matter so much less? And why do student activists, the UN, the EU, the media, and the rest of the world focus so much more on alleged Palestinian civilian deaths than on Syrian civilian deaths? Doing so is woefully unjust to Syrians. It is also deeply unfair to Israel, which has endured terrorist attacks on its people throughout its existence as a state. It is the one country that, according to Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, has done more to protect civilians during war than any other in the history of war.
The global obsession with condemning Israel not only defames a beleaguered democracy doing its best, it also enables the truly evil actors like the Assad regime and Hamas, by giving them a pass on some of the world's worst crimes.
Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.
The IPT accepts no funding from outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3 organization.  

202-363-8602 - main
202-966-5191 - fax

Ban the Burqa, Allow the Burkini

Daniel Pipes
Homepage   |   Articles   |    Blog

Ban the Burqa, Allow the Burkini

by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Inquirer
Be the first of your friends to like this.
France has been seized by a silly hysteria over the burkini, prompting me to wonder when Europeans will get serious about their Islamist challenge.
For starters, what is a burkini? The word (sometimes spelled burqini) combines the names of two opposite articles of female clothing: the burqa (an Islamic tent-like, full-body covering) and the bikini. Also known as a halal swimsuit, it modestly covers all but the face, hands and feet, consisting of a top and a bottom. It resembles a wetsuit with a head covering.
Which is which? A burkini and a wetsuit.
Aheda Zanetti of Ahiida Pty Ltd in Australia claims to have coined the portmanteau in 2003, calling it "smaller than a burka" while "two piece like a bikini." The curious and sensational cross of two radically dissimilar articles of clothing along with the need it fit for active, pious Muslim women, the burkini (as Ahiida notes) was "the subject of an immediate rush of interest and demand." Additionally, some women (like British cooking celebrity Nigella Lawson) wear it to avoid a tan, while pious Jews have adopted a variant garment.
In 2009, a public swimming pool in Emerainville excluded a burkini-wearing woman, on the grounds that she violated pool rules by wearing street clothes. But burkinis only erupted into a national political issue on Aug. 12 when the mayor of Cannes, a resort town on the French Riviera, banned burkinis (without legally defining what exactly they are) on the Cannes beaches because it represents Islamism. A court then confirmed his ban and the prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, further endorsed it (on the grounds that the burkini is a religious expression that has no place on the beach) as did François Fillon, a likely candidate for president next year. Thus encouraged, other French municipalities followed suit, including the city of Nice, plus another nine towns in the Alpes-Maritimes Department as well as five towns in the Var Department.
This development astonishes me, someone who has argued that the burqa (and the niqab, a similar article of clothing that leaves a slit for the eyes) needs to be banned from public places on security grounds. Those formless garments not only hide the face, permitting criminals and jihadis to hide themselves but they permit the wearer to hide, say, an assault rifle without anyone knowing. Men as well as women use burqas as accessories to criminal and jihadi purposes. Indeed, I have collected some 150 anecdotes of bank robberies, abductions, murders, and jihadi attacks since 2002; Philadelphia has become the Western capital of burqas and niqabs as criminal accessories, with at least 34 incidents in 9 years.
A Moroccan sign banning the burkini.
In contrast, the burkini poses no danger to public security. Unlike the burqa or niqab, it leaves the face uncovered; relatively tight-fitting, it leaves no place to hide weapons. Men cannot wear it as a disguise. Further, while there are legitimate arguments about the hygiene of large garments in pools (prompting some hotels in Morocco to ban the garment), this is obviously not an issue on the coastal beaches of France.
Accordingly, beach burkinis should be allowed without restriction. Cultural arguments, such as the one made by Valls, are specious and discriminatory. If a woman wishes to dress modestly on the beach, that is her business, and not the state's. It's also her prerogative to choose unflattering swimwear that waterlogs when she swims.
They should both be legal.
The Islamist threat to the West is very real, from the Rushdie rules to sex gangs, taharrush, polygyny, honor killings, partial no-go zones, and beheadings. With the influx to Europe of millions of unvetted Muslim migrants, these problems will grow along with the number of Islamists. Nerves are on edge and the political scene is changing rapidly, as symbolized by half the vote for president of Austria recently going to a hardline anti-immigration politician.
Issues concerning Islam are arguably Europe's number-one concern, ahead even of the European Union and the financial crisis; they need to be dealt with by confronting real problems, not by focusing on symbolic irrelevancies such as burkinis, halal shops, and minarets. Burqas and niqabs must be banned (as the German government may soon do), freedom of speech about Islam and Muslims must be reconfirmed, Saudi and Iranian funding for religious purposes must be cut, and a single legal code must apply to all.
So, my advice: focus on these real problems and let Muslims wear what they wish to the beach.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2016 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Related Topics:  Muslims in Europe, Radical Islam
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.

To subscribe to this list, go to http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php
Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
   Middle East Forum (articles and event reports)
   Campus Watch (articles, blog posts)
   Islamist Watch (articles, blog posts)
   Legal Project (articles, blog posts)
at http://www.danielpipes.org/list_subscribe.php

How America's Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration

Daniel Greenfield's article: How America's Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration

Link to Sultan Knish


Posted: 22 Aug 2016 09:29 PM PDT
A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

Hamas, Palestinian Authority Target Journalists Ahead of Election

Gatestone Institute
Facebook  Twitter  RSS
Donate

In this mailing:

Hamas, Palestinian Authority Target Journalists Ahead of Election

by Khaled Abu Toameh  •  August 23, 2016 at 5:00 am
  • Both of the journalists who were arrested made the mistake of reporting on the suffering of Palestinians living under Hamas rule. These are not the kind of stories that Hamas wishes to see ahead of the local and municipal elections. Rather, Hamas wants to see printed lies of prosperity.
  • It is a puzzle why foreign journalists choose not to report about the campaign of intimidation facing their Palestinian colleagues.
  • One might wonder if the human rights groups neglect these abuses because of their continued obsession with destroying Israel.
Ahmed Said (left) and Mahmoud Abu Awwad (right) are two journalists living in the Gaza Strip who were recently arrested by Hamas security forces. Both journalists made the mistake of reporting on the suffering of Palestinians living under Hamas rule.
Palestinian journalists are at the top of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas hit-list in the crackdown occurring alongside preparations for the Palestinian local and municipal elections, scheduled for October 8.
The crackdown is part of an ongoing campaign by the two rival parties to silence critics in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Neither Hamas nor the PA tolerates a free and independent media -- especially on the eve of a crucial election that could have far-reaching political implications in the Palestinian arena.
A Hamas victory in the upcoming elections would be catastrophic for President Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority. Such an electoral outcome would be tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in their policies and performance.

Turkey's Exhausting Zigzagging Between East and West

by Burak Bekdil  •  August 23, 2016 at 4:00 am
  • "What is the moral of the story? Until a few weeks ago, the West was comfortably day-dreaming that, despite his foibles, Erdogan was a staunch U.S. ally and an eager EU candidate. After all, had he not, only recently, downed a Russian jet? Then, suddenly, what do we see? Putin and Erdogan kissing and making up ..." — Fuad Kavur, London.
In July 2016, Erdogan apologized for downing the Russian plane, and in August he went to Russia to shake hands for normalization. Once again, Russia is trendy for the Turks, and the West looks passé. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin with Turkey's then Prime Minister Erdogan, meeting in Istanbul on December 3, 2012. (Image source: kremlin.ru)
Turkey has been a republic since 1923, a multi-party democracy since 1946, and a member of NATO since 1952. In 1987, it added another powerful anchor into the Western bay where it wanted it to remain docked: It applied for full membership in the European Union (EU). This imperfect journey toward the West was dramatically replaced by a directionless cruise, with sharp zigzags between the East and West, after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist AKP party came to power in 2002. Zigzagging remains the main Turkish policy feature even at this day.

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
14 East 60 St., Suite 1001, New York, NY 10022