patrick.net

i agree.

we must all vote against any politician of whatever party that tries to import muslims.

won't do any good, but of course i'll leave my strong objection on the white house web site.

Quigley says

Currently, our head of government, Obama, has decreed that the USA will spend $16,000 per refugee to bring in 100,000 Syrians to resettle in local communities. The first wave of 10,000 has already landed in New Orleans, and they are perplexingly 75% young males.

please give links!

i can't find details, except for sketchy far right-wing sites.

Here's one actual news news site for you, but short on details, but this is never going to hit mainstream media.

http://www.kbzk.com/story/30520398/2016-hopefuls-express-alarm-over-refugees-after-paris-attacks

please give links!

"Under pressure from the United Nations to aid in the refugee crisis, Obama instructed his administration in September to accept at least 10,000 Syrians over the next fiscal year starting in October. Over the past year, the United States has received fewer than 2,000 Syrians, according to the New York Times."

The deliberately misleading and oxymoronic "movement conservative" sites have run much higher numbers, based on a crowd mentality. As I've linked in prior comments, their express purpose is to "move" self-styled "conservatives", not to inform accurately. Also, some Syrians are not Muslim, and thus are extremely unlikely to become involved in Jihadi terrorism. The "movement conservative" media, including at times Faux Noise, have become like a cult.

Still, evidence from Belgium suggests an 0.1% prevalence among the Muslim population there, so inviting thousands in the middle of a war (whether you call it a "global war on terror" or, as W called it, a "crusade") means inviting some number of terrorists. I think it would be entirely reasonable to say, as a few Eastern European countries have said, that we will not accept refugees whose ideology is incompatible with democracy. That would include anyone who advocates Sharia, and probably most of the people who advocate Islam, since Jihad is a core requirement of Islam.

This only proves Obama really is a muslim...

Scare the terrorists away. Build a southern moat and stock it with libby professors.

(Somewhat off topic: How many refugees just Japan accept each year. Tee Hee!)

And there already have been debates over removing the Jihad Requirement from Islam. The losing side was those in favor.

They lost, but tried?

No, they lost AND died.

yes, it is actually true:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html

good lord. please, everyone, tell everyone you know that we are actively importing terrorists.

The sad thing is there might be some Christians we could take in, but unfortunately because of PC, nobody can say "We'll take the Christian Ones".

http://fox17online.com/2015/11/15/snyder-halts-syrian-refugee-efforts-following-paris-attacks/

So the governor of Michigan says no more Islamic refugees for his state. Can he defy Obama on this and prevail? If so, I suspect this will be the tip of a very long spear.

The US has been getting its refugees from UN refugee camps almost exclusively. These camps are mostly populated by Muslims, who commit violence against Christian refugees who show up, causing this group to mostly stay away, moving out of the region in small persecuted groups. Since they aren't in the UN camps, the Christians aren't eligible for refugee status. This is why the Syrian refugees Obama is importing are only 2% Christian. The refugees we are getting are the ones who pushed the Christian refugees out of the camps in the name of Allah.

Quigley says

The refugees we are getting are the ones who pushed the Christian refugees out of the camps in the name of Allah.

Shades of Rwanda...

BENACO CAMP, Tanzania - Aid workers say they recognise dozens of death squad members responsible for the carnage in Rwanda but whom they are now feeding in the world's largest refugee centre. 'I can see the murderers wherever I go in this camp and they recognise me. Revenge cannot be the answer, but I do not know what is,' said a Red Cross official.

The Swiss official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that he had recognised up to 30 militiamen whom he knew had massacred civilians.

He told of people herded into compounds across southern Rwanda, doors being closed and grenades being thrown in. He said he had seen many such instances in the 10 days that it had taken him to flee Rwanda.

The medical aid worker said: 'I would lose my job if I identified them. Under the Geneva Convention I am not allowed to. But there is one man who I would shoot the balls off and leave lying in the sun. He is here. Forgiveness is hard.' Refugees have repeatedly told aid workers in Benaco camp that militiamen and their leaders fled with them and were moving about in gangs, often trying to steal food handed out by aid groups.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/rwandan-killers-on-loose-in-refugee-camp-aid-worker-sees-death-squad-members-roaming-free-among-1435354.html

Let media is going all out interviewing Unitarian Ministers singing the O Jay's Song, and scrupulously ignoring situations like the above.

thunderlips11 says

Shades of Rwanda...

Quigley's comment above reminded me of those Rwanda reports also, but the Hutus and Tutsis were both mostly Christian, so the Rwanda reports show that violence is not limited to Islam. The Rwandan genocide was mainly about ethnic grievances and greed among "Christians", not religious jihad.

I can believe Quigley's comment above but have not actually found sources other than anecdotes, e.g. your thread from April. It seems to be a meme pumped through the "movement conservative" channels, like the vastly overstated numbers in the OP. Those sites have a formula: make up a story, or a dramatic exaggeration, and then quote each other within their partisan echo chamber, herding the flock. The American publications appear to cite the UK "Express," a British tabloid that supports the not-quite-but-almost-neo-Nazi UKIP. It's a challenge to separate fact from fiction when American Christianists and British neo-Nazis cry wolf all the time, and their followers yearn to believe anything that will feed their hatred for the President and secular democracy.

curious2 says

I can believe Quigley's comment above but have not actually found sources other than anecdotes, e.g. your thread from April.

Here is some confirmation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/16/europe/italy-migrants-christians-thrown-overboard/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-migrants-accused-of-throwing-christians-overboard-during-row-on-boat-from-libya-to-italy-10184025.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/16/mediterranean-migrants-eu/25864433/

curious2 says

a British tabloid that supports the not-quite-but-almost-neo-Nazi UKIP

This couldn't be farther from the truth. The UKIP has nothing to do with a Nazi party. Farage repeatedly speaks out against the new fear that Jewish people in Europe go through again because their leaders are too afraid to offend anybody (more likely they want votes and think being politically correct is the way to go). This allegation hinges on one picture taken of Farage with a friend/acquaintance who posts on stormfront (because he is a everything-is-a-zionist conspiracy guy like people here on this forum) and who also was a former secretary of UKIP. Nearly every party in every country has and has had outliers. It's that sort of identity politics that are responsible for the politically correct atmosphere of today which ironically employs nazi-like methods when it's time to gang up on someone from the opposite team. And this causes the gridlock we see today where nobody can hang and make common sense politics with another anymore because they may hang out with someone who they don't like. While it is understandable that some think Farage should pick his acquaintances more carefully I give zero fucks about the fact that one of his acquaintances posts on stormfrront. What I care about is what Farage says in the parliament and what the UKIP official policies of today are, and there is absolutely nothing that points to Nazi-like tendencies, quite the opposite.

thunderlips11 says

curious2 says

I can believe Quigley's comment above but have not actually found sources other than anecdotes, e.g. your thread from April.

Here is some confirmation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/16/europe/italy-migrants-christians-thrown-overboard/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/muslim-migrants-accused-of-throwing-christians-overboard-during-row-on-boat-from-libya-to-italy-10184025.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/16/mediterranean-migrants-eu/25864433/

Yes, I had found confirmation of that story, which is why I cited it, but I haven't found reports to corroborate Quigley's comment other than the UKIP sponsor that I linked to, and sites in the US expressly intended to "move" rather than inform.

mell says

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Check the OP to see how far things can get from the truth, e.g. "The first wave of 10,000 has already landed in New Orleans" when in fact a national total of 2,000 have arrived. UKIP tries to distance itself from obvious neo-Nazis carrying swastikas, but UKIP has been taken over by British nationalists wanting to replace Nazi symbols with British symbols, like Huey Long said of fascism coming to America wrapped in an American flag. Basically, UKIP got hijacked like the Tea Party in America:

"Dr Alan Sked said the party he established in 1993 was dominated by “the cult of Farage” whose stranglehold over Ukip would sink many potential MPs’ chances of ever taking seats in the House of Commons.
***
"“My great whinge about Ukip is not just their racism and their lurch to the far-right but to lots of people in the country they are simply toxic and wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.
***
Dr Sked said Ukip under Mr Farage had transformed itself into something unrecognisable compared to when he founded it as “a mainstream, liberal party to defend British parliamentary democracy from Europe and the EU”.
***
Once Farage took over the party became more and more right wing.

“Now party members are making all sorts of embarrassing statements about blacks, Chinese, Islam or something else.”"

Britain has a conservative party, e.g. Boris Johnson and David Cameron, and then it has the pseudo-conservative (actually regressive) UKIP.

curious2 says

mell says

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Check the OP to see how far things can get from the truth, e.g. "The first wave of 10,000 has already landed in New Orleans" when in fact a national total of 2,000 have arrived. UKIP tries to distance itself from obvious neo-Nazis carrying swastikas, but there has always been a lot of overlap. Basically, UKIP arose out of British nationalists wanting to replace Nazi symbols with British symbols, like Huey Long said of fascism coming to America wrapped in an American flag.

Nothing against calling it a nationalist or populist (I don't consider populist a negative term) party, but they are also non-interventionists and carry libertarian elements, so I think fascist or neo-nazi is simply wrong here, especially since breaking free from the EU would give the citizens of those countries far more freedom from the oppressive fascist eu-government in brussels. It's true that there is and has been overlap, but that is a problem of every protest party. Even Geert Wilders party in the Netherlands has been accused of that, and in Germany the anti-EU AfD. When there is only establishment to select from and finally a strong new protest party emerges you will see people from the fringe (and more radical) protest parties migrating over. And it is extremely problematic to slap them with a party exclusion because of their past should they get elected for obvious reasons. That goes for the far left and the far right.

I always thought of UKIP as the Euroskeptic Party, and that it was ganged up upon by Labour and the Tories, who divide the Euroskeptics between them and keep them on the backbenches. And that the BNP/EDL stuff was just the usual smear nonsense. It actually did very well in the past elections, and would probably be the party key to control of Parliament if the UK had proportional elections instead of WTA/FPTP. Bizarre election where one party that gets almost twice the popular vote of another third party ends up with only one seat, but the Lib Dems, with almost half the popular vote of UKIP, keep 8.

The Graun lately has been keeping articles in past day or so about Paris and Islam Comment-free, but letting everybody comment on the New David Bowie Single, or the Daily Valenti "Menstruation is now Acceptable" or "Cat Calling: UK's Biggest Problem" articles. Won't be long before their NeuLabour Corbyn Bashing Articles are going to be declared Haram for CiF, since both Islamism and Corbyn subjects show that the majority of the commentariat has a non-Neoliberal, non-Multikult view of things the Graun Editors do not like.

I commented about UKIP and then updated with links and quotes:

curious2 says

Dr Alan Sked said “My great whinge about Ukip is not just their racism and their lurch to the far-right but to lots of people in the country they are simply toxic and wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole."

I think the analogy to the Tea Party stands: what started out as a fairly non-partisan reaction to government overreach and deficit spending got hijacked by holy rollers with a social agenda. Even UKIP's founder calls UKIP racist, "far-right," and unrecognizable. I wrote "not-quite-but-almost-neo-Nazi" based on the current membership, and I do think it matters what they really think and what they really want to do, not just the gauzy promises they campaign on.

thunderlips11 says

I always thought of UKIP as the Euroskeptic Party, and that it was ganged up upon by Labour and the Tories, who divide the Euroskeptics between them and keep them on the backbenches. And that the BNP/EDL stuff was just the usual smear nonsense.

The Graun lately has been keeping articles in past day or so about Paris and Islam Comment-free, but letting everybody comment on the New David Bowie Single, or the Daily Valenti "Menstruation is now Acceptable" or "Cat Calling: UK's Biggest Problem" articles. Won't be long before their NeuLabour Corbyn Bashing Articles are going to be declared Haram for CiF, since both Islamism and Corbyn subjects show that the majority of the commentariat has a non-Neoliberal, non-Multikult view of things the Graun Editors do not like.

As I said I agree with curious on the overlap, but for the reasons mentioned. Funny anectode is that in Germany a mayor and member of the (very pro-immigration since they get their votes from immigrants) green party is in danger of being slapped with party exclusion after stating that his small community simply cannot take in more refugees, which is simply a mathematical fact. By the same token one could refuse to work with Putin for his alleged KGB-past (and present?), but what good would that do? Better to work with somebody who has reasonable common-sense views than to find dirt on them and refuse to work together on what clearly are current global problems requiring coordinated solutions.