The Refugee Industrial Complex wants us to believe that asylum seekers are poor little waifs who need the help of the too-rich West. But some of the demanding refugee crowd are dangerous characters, as was demonstrated recently in rural Norway, where a knife-wielding Sudanese man murdered three on a bus after he had been refused asylum.
The name of the killer has not yet been released, so we don’t know whether he is a Mohammed, and the religious identity remains to be seen. The killer is reportedly from South Sudan, which is more Christian than Muslim. Perhaps he was just homicidally angry in the style of African refugees, who appears to feel particularly entitled to European wealth. One thinks of the 2011 Lampedusa riot in this regard, where men fleeing the Arab Spring burned down the refugee center and rampaged through the town because of their dissatisfaction with treatment.
Below, Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences, was one of the three victims knifed to death.
There were only three persons on the bus, so the refugee killed all of the riders on board.
The man accused of stabbing to death a woman and two men on an express bus in western Norway was an asylum seeker from South Sudan who was due to be deported from Norway on Tuesday, VG has reported.
The 31-year-old, who was living at an asylum reception centre in Årdal, was due to be deported to Spain on Tuesday, after having his application rejected in June.
“This person had applied for asylum, and come to Norway in April,” a spokesman for Norway’s immigration directorate said. “He was rejected in June, and was supposed to be returned to Spain under the so-called Dublin Regulation.”
The man is accused of killing the bus driver, Arve Haug Bagn (55) and Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences. The third victim, a Swedish man in his 50s, has not been named.
Following the Boston Marathon bombing in which three were killed and hundreds injured, iconic footraces have come to be seen as major targets for jihadist Muslims. As a result, events like the New York City Marathon now require a huge investment of extra money and police resources to protect the occasion from terrorism. The NYC marathon is no longer a simple celebration of individual athletic excellence, but now is another victim of diverse Muslim immigration.
New restrictions were in place. Runners may no longer wear vests with large pockets, or carry backpacks or even CamelBak bags holding water. The meandering route of the Sunday event was designed to showcase the city, running through all of the five boroughs. Sunday’s runners may not have noticed the city sights, though, preoccupied as they were with security visible along 26 miles. The extra protection measures included surveillance from helicopters and 1400 cameras located along the route, plus bomb-sniffing dogs and scuba divers checking out the waterways.
The dollar cost for security was $1 million, money that could have been used far more productively, but at least the race went off safely and that’s the important thing. Congratulations to organizers and the NYPD.
Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who writes about Muslim culture. His observations come from a background of having worked among Muslims held in prison, where he noticed “certain antisocial patterns.”
His current piece explains the idea that followers of Islam have remained backward for its 1400-year history by creating a culture of isolation and rejection of any influence deemed non-Islamic.
The topic of immigration is not mentioned per se in Sennels’ article, but the social directives that make Islam a fortress against outside ideas also mean that Muslim immigrants refuse to assimilate. He has noted elsewhere that “the integration of Muslims will never happen” and is an effective voice against Muslim immigration because of his professional expertise.
Muslim immigration acts as a form of colonization, since they have no intention of integrating into the receiving nation. In fact, as soon as Muslims congregate in sufficient numbers in a neighborhood, they may turn it into a “no go zone” for westerners where sharia law is recommended, and may be violently enforced. A recent example of this territoriality was the brutal beating of American student Francesco Hounye by a Muslim gang in London angered at his drinking a beer in their sharia zone.
Muslims live by the millions in the West, yet they don’t see the connection between individual freedom and reason for creating progress. They are content to purchase western-built technology their culture in incapable of creating, from cell phones to advanced weapons, to use to destroy the civilization that produced them. Plus, as the author notes, widespread cousin-marriage inbreeding doesn’t help to alleviate the negative attitude toward knowledge in general.
While almost all other cultures changed from primitive and medieval to democratic and egalitarian societies, one culture managed to keep even its most brutal and backward traditions and values for 1,400 years until today. Still today, the majority of Muslims prefer to live by values that can be traced all the way back to the desert tribes in which the founder of their religion lived. Getting to know life in Muslim families and societies is like traveling back in time to the time of Muhammad. Here one finds shocking laws and traditions that are obviously criminal and inhumane — but for some reason accepted — in our otherwise humanistic culture.
While non-Muslim scientists invent new fantastic medicines and technologies daily, discover the most amazing things about the universe, its building blocks and inhabitants, and Western voters and politicians have created the most humane, rich and free societies in world history, most Islamic countries are still amputating limbs for theft, stoning women and homosexuals, heavily inbred, denying people free speech and democracy, and contributing absolutely nothing when it comes to science, human rights or peace.
What are the cultural psychological factors making Islam able to stay medieval for 1,400 years?
One main factor is that while all other religions allow their followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs, Islam categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as apostates. And according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be punished with death. The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic societies ever to develop into modern, humanistic civilisations.
The fact that Muslims deviating from the Quranic world view are to be punished has the direct consequence that scientific facts conflicting with the naive and childish world view held in pre-Enlightenment cultures are suppressed. Together with massive inbreeding — 70 percent of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at least 30 percent of Turks are from first cousin-marriages (often through many generations) — this has resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world produces only one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific research, and are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners. Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year. Continue reading this article
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WIS.): Not now, but in the future we’re going to have labor shortages. We have 10,000 people retiring each and everyday in America when the Baby Boomers retire. We are not like Europe, we’re not like Japan in that our birthrates are really low, but they’re not high enough. Immigration, in a decade or so, can help us. That means we need to get an immigration system that works. We need an immigration system that works to bring people to this country who want to contribute. (The Laura Ingraham Show, June 19, 2013)
Could someone please tell these oblivious Republicans that America’s need for more workers in coming decades will be substantially reduced by automation and robotics? We don’t need tens of millions of additional workers imported from abroad.
A new trend is brewing in the coffee world: coffee prepared by a robot, able to be preordered via cellphone and picked up at an unmanned kiosk, perfectly adjusted to your taste and ready to go.
To some, this might seem lamentable: the beginning of the end of coffee shops as we know them. No more huddling around warm cups of coffee with friends or sipping a refreshing iced latte while reading.
But to others, this might be just what they’ve waited for: no lines when you’re in a rush, and coffee prepared by a machine that is programmed to make it perfectly time and time again.
The latest company to present such a coffee kiosk is Austin-based Briggo. As Quartz recently reported, Briggo opened its first kiosk on the University of Texas’ Austin campus in July of this year. The kiosk — dubbed “The Coffee Haus” — takes up about 50 square feet of space, has a nice exterior wood design, and accepts orders either on-site or across campus via a website, informing the customer precisely when the drink will be ready. Continue reading this article
When Janet Napolitano was in charge of the Department of Homeland Security, the illegal alien hacks thought she deported too many of them. (However, it has been known for some time that the deportation figures of the current administration were inflated — Obama admitted the numbers were “deceptive” back in 2011.)
In her first major address in her new gig as head of the University of California system, she made a point of plopping down some serious cash for illegal alien students who want a free ride to UC — $5 million, at a time when the university has been struggling with its budget and tuition has been marching ever upward.
Yet Janet Napolitano can find $5 million in loose change to make the lives of foreign lawbreakers still easier as they take college slots that should go to California young people. Illegal alien students already get taxpayer-subsidized tuition and financial aid, but apparently that red carpet treatment was not enough and now they must have special advisors.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — University of California President Janet Napolitano said Wednesday she is devoting $5 million to provide special counseling and financial aid for students living in the U.S. illegally, a move aimed at disarming critics who worried she would be hostile to the small but vocal student population.
The former Homeland Security Secretary announced the initiative in her first public address since she became head of the 10-campus university system a month ago — an evening appearance in San Francisco organized by the Commonwealth Club. She also pledged $10 million for recruiting and training graduate students and post-doctoral research fellows.
“Let me be clear. UC welcomes all students who qualify academically, whether they are documented or undocumented,” she told an audience of several hundred people. “Consider this a down payment — one more piece of evidence of our commitment to all Californians.”
Napolitano said the money earmarked for immigrant students would be used for financial aid and to hire advisers at each campus who could provide guidance on matters ranging from how to pursue legal U.S. residency to applying for graduate school.
“They do merit special attention,” she said. “Oftentimes they are from families who are very poor and first-generation, so have no one out there to talk to them about student life.”
University officials estimate that out of a student population of 239,000, the UC system enrolls about 900 students who were brought into the country illegally as children, a group of immigrants known as “dreamers” because of the stalled U.S. DREAM Act that would give certain youth a path to permanent residency.
As part of a bill signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, California this year started allowing students who are not legal U.S. residents and are therefore ineligible for most types of federal financial aid to apply for state grants and scholarships.
UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein said later that the $15 million Napolitano pledged in her remarks — $5 million for immigrant student support and $10 million for graduate students and research fellows — would not come from tuition or the university’s state-funded operating budget. It will be drawn from reserves in accounts the system has used to help finance faculty mortgages and campus efficiency projects, Klein said. Continue reading this article
Texas Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX) appeared on the Laura Ingraham radio show Wednesday and was refreshingly clear in denouncing the idea of House members conferencing with the Senate to legalize millions of illegal aliens.
Ingraham: Should the Republicans in the House go to conference on the issue of immigration this year?
McCaul: No. The answer is No. I talked to Speaker Boehner directly about this. I have a border security bill, I’ve been trying to get that border secure for the entire time I’ve been up here, for ten years, and as chairman I want to get this thing finally done and that’s what my constituents want, but I am not gonna go down the road of conferencing with the Senate CIR bill and I told Boehner that he needed to stand up and make that very clear that we are not going to conference with the Senate on this. We are not going to conference with the Senate, period.
Laura, I was invited to the White House yesterday, and I refused to meet with the president because I saw it as a political trap.
I am not pushing for immigration reform, I’ve been against amnesty my entire career. I’m simply interested in getting the security piece done. And we have to do that, first and foremost.
If only the rest of the House Repubs were so forthright in denouncing open borders. The 1986 amnesty was a complete failure, all carrot and no stick. But instead of learning from past mistakes, too many Republicans want to repeat the mistake only on steroids. And double legal immigration during a jobs depression of five years duration.
MR. DRISCOLL: This is Ed Driscoll for PJ Media.com, and we’re talking today with Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor of City Journal magazine, and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She’s also one of several contributors, including PJ Media’s own Andrew Klavan and Victor Davis Hanson, to the new publication by City Journal magazine titled, The Beholden State: California’s Lost Promise and How to Recapture It. And Heather, thanks for stopping by today.
MS. MAC DONALD: Thanks, Ed.
MR. DRISCOLL: Heather, perhaps the best place to start is with the most open-ended question. California — how did it all go so wrong?
MS. MAC DONALD: Well, Ed, there’s still much that’s right, of course. I mean, it is one — I think it is one — I think it’s the most beautiful state in the country; as a native, I’m obviously a little prejudiced, but I think it is a exemplar of identity politics, for one thing. There’s too many institutions that are convinced that the most important thing about its residents is their racial or ethnic national origin identity and — and increasingly, of course, gender and sexual identity. And we see that playing out in university admissions, in ideas about crime and policing and immigration policy, and I think that’s a betrayal of what California used to mean, which was a real meritocratic ideal, that anybody who came, through hard work could really move ahead and the — the state welcomed talent and achievement and did not worry about disparate impact or racial proportionality. Continue reading this article
Pakistan is a bad place to be born female because of the brutal misogyny deeply embedded in Islam and the tribal culture. A 13-year-old recently had to dig herself out of a muddy grave after being raped and buried alive by two men as she walked to her Koran class.
Tuesday’s poll data was quite a surprise considered from the viewpoint of the efficacy of the propaganda media. The drumbeat Opravda voices have been incessantly insisting the Tea Party to be evil and racist, so any decent showing by the group in polling is worth noting.
The attacks are vicious, and considerably overblown against a citizen group that merely campaigns for Constitutional government and against profligate overspending. The issues are mainstream and widely supported, yet the media gives supportive coverage to far left enemies of the Tea Party.
When George Bush was President, dissent was patriotic, at least according to the liberal press, but now not so much. It’s hard to argue against law and responsible budgets, so the debate has been shifted into emotional areas like inequality and race, with distractions like the Trayvon case taking up truckloads of ink while the debt clock ticked away.
Unlike the violent Occupy movement, the Tea Party represents genuine grassroots American values, which makes it highly threatening to the left.
With all the abuse piled upon them by powerful liberal forces, Tea Partiers have done quite well to poll equal to the President, though the details get a little sketchy. Imagine if the media treated the Tea Party as positively as it did the Occupiers.
Voters are evenly divided when asked whether they agree more politically with President Obama or with the average member of the Tea Party. But an enormous partisan gap colors virtually all opinions of the Tea Party.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues facing the country. But just as many (42%) say their views come closest to those of the average Tea Party member instead. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Thirty-four percent (34%) now believe their personal views are closest to those of the average member of Congress when it comes to the major issues of the day. But slightly more (36%) say their views are closest to those of the average member of the Tea Party. A sizable 30%, however, are not sure. Continue reading this article
In Kenya, the government is beginning to deport, er “repatriate” Somalis after the horrific Nairobi mall attack in September. The BBC report linked below didn’t like the word “deport” apparently, because it was not used.
“Repatriate” is more positive though, since it sounds like “patriot” and is based on the Latin “patria” meaning “native land.” The word “deport” also comes from Latin, specifically “deportare” meaning to “carry away” — according to the Apple dictionary built into my Mac.
Kenya’s interior minister has sacked 15 immigration officers as investigations into the Westgate mall siege continue.
Joseph Ole Lenku said the officials had endangered national security by issuing ID documents to illegal immigrants.
He also said the government would start repatriating Somali refugees to prevent further attacks.
At least 67 people died when militants from the Somali Islamist al-Shabab group attacked the Nairobi shopping centre last month.
Kenya is host to the largest refugee camp in the world, Dadaab – home to about half a million people – near the Somali border, while it is believed that more than 30,000 Somali refugees live in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, alone.
‘Welcomed with open arms’ Mr Lenku said the sacked immigration officers would appear in court to face the law.
The government would also be carrying out a thorough audit of identity cards and passports issued in the country in the last two years, he said.
“This exercise will enable us flush out all those who have been issued with illegal passports and other identification documents,” Kenya’s Star newspaper quoted him as saying.
“We have welcomed with open arms, refugees fleeing from insecurity in neighbouring countries but we won’t allow them to harm us,” he added in his address to journalists in Nairobi.
“Because of the returning calm in some parts of the Federal Republic of Somali, the process of repatriating Somali refugees has started,” he said.
Kenya has about 4,000 troops in the south of Somalia as part of the UN-backed African Union force which has made significant advances against al-Shabab in the last two years, recapturing the area’s main cities. Continue reading this article
Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was spouting whoppers about the benefits of illegal alien amnesty on Saturday, saying he sees “rays of hope” in next week’s fly-in to Washington by business leaders to batter House Republicans into submission and that the President will deign to take a piecemeal approach (and count on Harry Reid’s conference wolves to make legalization happen for millions).
You can tell that one of the Democrat talking points is that mass amnesty is “good for the economy” because it is so frequently mentioned, even though the CBO reported that the Senate bill would reduce average wages in America for 12 years, increase unemployment for 7 years and reduce per capita GNP growth over 25 years.
Richardson stated openly, “Now as long as the path to citizenship of the 11 million is kept in an immigration bill, the House and Senate can move into a conference committee and then come out I think with a comprehensive package.”
In other words, walk into the trap, stupid Republicans.
Radio host Laura Ingraham has been grilling members of Congress on their position about going to conference with the Senate sharks, and she is a tough grader. She cross-examined Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on October 25 about his position on conferencing and found his arguments inadequate for a passing grade: the title on the interview reads, “Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) supports immigration reform in the House.”
It’s too bad more conservative radio talkers don’t keep this issue front and center as Ingraham does. Rush Limbaugh is worse than useless, and he appears to have given up. Mass amnesty is the biggest threat to the country, worse than Obamacare, because legislation can be changed, but the big-government culture of hispanics has shown itself to last for generations. And culture forms politics, not the other way around.
You know, I’ve no wish to join the big group of intellectuals who spend their time debating immigration… I have the impression that these talks serve no purpose. The people already know it all, intuitively: that France, as our ancestors fashioned it centuries ago, is disappearing. And that we keep the gallery amused by talking ceaselessly of immigration without ever saying the final truth. A truth that is moreover unsayable, as my friend Jean Cau noted, because whoever says it is immediately hounded, condemned then rejected. Richard Millet came close to it, look what happened to him! [See here for more on this].
Is the seriousness of the problem being kept from the French people?
Yes. Starting with the politicians in charge first of all! Publicly “everything’s going well, Madame Marquessa”. But behind closed doors, they acknowledge that “yes, you’re right: there is a real problem”. I have several edifying letters on this subject from prominent leftist politicians, from those on the right too, to whom I sent the Camp of the Saints. “But you understand: we can’t say it …” These people have a double language, a double conscience. I don’t know how they do it! I think the distress comes from there: the people know that things are being hidden from them. Today, tens of millions of people don’t buy into the official discourse on immigration. Not one of them believes that it is an opportunity for France “une chance pour la France”. Because reality imposes itself on them, every day. All of these ideas boil in their heads and don’t come out.
You don’t believe it’s possible to assimilate the foreigners welcomed into France?
No. The model of integration isn’t working. Even if a few more illegals are escorted to the border and we succeed in integrating foreigners a bit more than today, their numbers will not stop growing and that will change nothing in the fundamental problem: the progressive invasion of France and Europe by a numberless third-world. I’m not a prophet, but you see clearly the fragility of these countries, where an unbearable poverty is established and grows ceaselessly alongside indecent wealth. Those people don’t turn to their governments to protest. They expect nothing of them. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.