Paul Kersey recently called to my attention some statistics on race and crime from the Minneapolis Police Department that cover the period 2009 to 2014. Every table explains that “Victim race is determined by reporting officer, suspect race in determined by the crime victim, arrestee race is determined by arresting officer.”
We have written frequently about the European “migrant crisis” of 2015: its origins, how the media misrepresent it, and why it is such a threat to Europe. We have profiled the keys personalities, from Angela Merkel, to Geert Wilders, to Viktor Orban, and reviewed several books about different aspects of the crisis. We have also published accounts of how sevral countries are handling the crisis (Italy, Russia, Poland, France), and covered the terrorist attacks this invasion has brought. We have also written about the organizations that have taken a stand to fight for Europe.
Here are some of the most memorable photos of the crisis from the last two years.
In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be, “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”
After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”
What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.
Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)
Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.
Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.
Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.
In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, these are people who have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.
Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country — except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment — it’s against the law to deny the Holocaust.
Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn’t Islamic terrorism a little higher on our “immediate problems” list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?
The country with a First Amendment can’t do that — the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.
But If our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely “watching” those on the “watch” list, they’d deport them.
To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can’t manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.
If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son Omar wouldn’t have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.
If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik’s social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.
We’re already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as “jihad,” we need them to stop watching and start deporting.
Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP — and obviously every Democrat — have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don’t make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.
But they won’t do it. That’s “not who we are,” as Ryan famously said.
True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn’t knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.
Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn’t start bombing things and shooting people.)
But today, our official position is: Let’s choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn’t that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men — by which I mean British men — were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.
If we can’t look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can’t we at least stop admitting ever more “refugees,” some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?
No, that’s “not who we are.”
Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? “We surrender” would at least have the virtue of honesty.
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
On May 22, Salman Abedi, 22, waiting at the entrance of the Arianna Grande pop concert in Manchester, blew himself up, killing almost two dozen people, among them parents waiting to pick up their children.
Saturday, three Islamic terrorists committed “suicide-by-cop,” using a van to run down pedestrians on London Bridge, and then slashing and stabbing patrons of pubs and diners in the nearby Borough Market.
By all accounts, the killers bore no special grudge against those they murdered. They appear not even to have known their victims.
Why, then, did they kill these strangers, and themselves?
A BBC eyewitness suggests a motive: “They shouted, ‘This is for Allah’, as they stabbed indiscriminately.”
The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.
Ideas have consequences. And where might these crazed killers have gotten an idea like that?
Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
On Palm Sunday, an explosion in Tanta, 56 miles north of Cairo, killed 29 and injured 71 Copts as they prayed at the Mar Girgis church. A second blast at a church in Alexandria killed 18 and wounded 35.
On May 26, masked gunmen stopped two buses carrying Coptic Christians to Saint Samuel the Confessor Monastery in Egypt, and opened fire, killing 26 and wounding 25.
“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” said Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning.
Yet, years of such atrocities have effected a near-complete cleansing of Christianity from its cradle provinces in the Holy Land.
If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
Clearly, from the suicide bombings and shootings of civilians in the Middle East, now across the West, there is a belief among some Muslims that what the killers are doing is moral and meritorious — taking the martyr’s path to salvation.
When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
In condemning the London Bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said that recent atrocities across England were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”
Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West, even as this school of fanatics is seeking to purge Christianity from the East.
We are at war. And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified? Are lashings and executions of Christian converts justified?
Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?
Other questions need answering as well.
Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs? Is our First Amendment freedom of speech and of religion extensive enough to cover the sermons of imams who use mosques to preach in favor of expelling Christians from the Middle East and an eventual takeover of the West for an Islam where Sharia replaces constitutional law?
Are such Islamist beliefs not intolerable and perilous for our republic?
Clearly, the West is in a civilizational struggle, with the outcome in some doubt.
Four years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire had ceased to exist. Japan was smoldering ruins, its navy at the bottom of the Pacific. An American proconsul, Douglas MacArthur, was dictating to the Japanese from the Dai-Ichi building.
Today we are in the 16th year of a war begun on 9/11. We are mired down in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Our victory in Afghanistan is being reversed by the Taliban.
While the ISIS caliphate is being eradicated in Raqqa and Mosul, its elements are in two dozen countries of the Mideast. Muslim migrants and refugees, ISIS and al-Qaida among them, are moving into Europe.
Terrorist attacks in the West grow in number and lethality every year. The new normal. Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
Wars, it is said, are the death of republics. And we now seem to be caught up in an endless war.
“ISIS” did not attack in Manchester; a second-generation Muslim, son of immigrants, did.
The Islamic State may have inspired 22-year-old Salman Abedi, but ISIS in the Middle East did not murder 22 youngsters and injure dozens at a performance of pop tart Ariana Grande.
ISIS, no doubt, is pleased Salman Abedi has killed in Manchester. The outfit is eager to continue providing inspiration, even training, to his kind. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send Abedi and his ilk to kill Britons.
The Abedis, who fly the Libyan flag outside the family home, were invited into England. Policy makers and power brokers in the West have invited Muslim immigrants to live among us in the idiotic belief that, underneath the nosebags (the burqa, the abaya and full-body swaddle), they were just like us.
Almost all these Muslim killers are legitimate immigrants. Before the Manchester murderer came Knifeman Khalid Masood, on Westminster Bridge (March, 2017). There were the immigrants who carved up Drummer Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, and the Muslim who gutted an American woman in central London, both in 2013. It’s hard to keep up.
This is how citizenship in the West has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally and imperiously. The same overlords squint at the great unwashed of England or Middle America from behind their parapets in White Hall and Washington. The same sorts despise us all for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably Anglo-American, maybe even a tad monocultural.
While the Muslims who strike at our families live among us, they’re not of us.
Look, language mediates behavior. To properly respond to the vipers that elect to kill Americans, Europeans and Englishmen, we need to closely describe them.
To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.
Certainly the term of choice must reflect not ideology, right or left, but reality. For if we don’t describe exactly who’s killing us; we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.
The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining what is murder-by-Muslim immigrant, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are at once achievable and the legitimate purview of limited government.
You and I will be forced to pay for elaborate schemes that relate not at all to the problem at hand. Think about George Bush’s dumb dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here. “W” failed to consider that thanks to longstanding liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. Besides, bombing Syria or Iraq doesn’t stop a Manchester. To the contrary; it triggers it.
So don’t be fooled.
ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam unreformed is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.
Berlin endured a Christmas-market massacre, in 2016. There was slaughter in Nice, Paris, even in an ancient village in Normandy, where an elderly priest was decapitated on the altar by two young jackals. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Chattanooga Tennessee (where four Marines were executed, in 2015): The carnage, ongoing, is too great to catalog. It emanates not from ISIS in the Levant or in the abstract, but from flesh-and-blood Muslims living right here, in America, England and on the Continent.
Also sorely missed in the discussion is that in the US, Great Britain and Western Europe, state and civil society acculturate immigrants into a militant identity politics. Essentially, newcomers are taught to hate their hosts. Nations whose institutions promote cultural relativism and hate of the dominant culture have no business importing the sort of immigrant who’ll be quick to act on an ideology of hate—be it the self-hate of the host, or the hate in Jihad.
Of course, these dormant murderers—Muslim Americans, Canadians, Europeans or Englishmen—did not act alone.
Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are State central planners: Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, activists, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it—and a command-and-control judiciary that has decided the American Bill of Rights belongs to the world, and was written to enrich immigration lawyers and their clientele the world-over.
If the truth is that the threat we face is not in the Middle East, but here at home, and that it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat—the solution presents itself.
The latest Muslim terrorist attack ripped apart little girls at a concert in Manchester, England, on Monday, killing 22. The death and body-part count is still rising.
This is not a game. When young British girls are the targets of a suicide bombing, can we take a short break from the posturing, political correctness and Russia conspiracy theorizing? Won’t the hatred of Trump keep for a few weeks?
Channel-surfing on Monday night was like watching broadcasts from different countries. While Fox News and CNN covered the terrorist attack, MSNBC concentrated on the real news of the night—TRUMP’S COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA—as children screamed in the background in footage from Manchester.
It was a big enough step for MSNBC to stop claiming that the “explosion” was just popping balloons. The hosts reasoned, We know that Islam is a religion of peace, so what else could it be?
CBS and NBC News finally produced the name of the suicide bomber—the next day. (After any terrorist attack, the media like to keep us in suspense for as long as possible about whether it was a Muslim or a Christian.)
Even then, the answer was difficult to find on either network’s Twitter feeds, which were bristling with minute-by-minute updates on former CIA Director John Brennan’s congressional testimony about Russia and Trump: Yes, collusion was investigated. No, Brennan is not aware of any evidence to support the theory. BREAKING NEWS!
The media didn’t gaudily broadcast the bomber’s name, religion or ethnicity in their headlines, but at least they finally coughed up the information. He was Salman Abedi, son of Libyan “refugees.”
Apparently, the media think you can’t be trusted with that information. You might notice that the West is deliberately importing people who enjoy killing kids.
According to ABC News, the bomber’s father, Ramadan Abedi (not to be confused with Huma Abedin) was a member of an al-Qaida-linked Islamic group in Libya. For this, he was accepted as a “refugee” by the British government.
Liberals’ main reaction to the attack was not to demand the toppling of the terrorist-friendly British government, but to worry about an upsurge in Islamophobia. They say there’s nothing we can do about terrorism and we probably shouldn’t do anything anyway, because we deserve it.
These were teen and preteen girls! Is there any fuel left in the gas tank of humanity, or are we just running on fumes now?
While liberals are impatient to get back to their murderous immigration policies, conservatives are pining for war. And really, who wouldn’t want to send ground troops to Syria after our tremendous successes in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Why do we need to fight ISIS in Syria again? I forget. How about we NOT send U.S. troops to some godforsaken nation of primitives?
My reasoning is: It will cost us trillions of dollars; we will sacrifice the lives of an untold number of our best young men in combat (and little girls—thanks, liberals!); and we will accomplish absolutely nothing, apart from creating a new stream of “refugees” and making the primitives even angrier with us, if that’s possible.
Historically, starting wars in the Third World has not proved salutary.
Trump was elected for one reason: Because he promised to put Americans’ interests first. If only he’d stuck to his campaign promises, he’d be a hero right now.
The one promise Trump has kept is the so-called “Muslim ban”—and he’s looking prophetic on that. The Ninth Circuit was probably just about to release its opinion affirming a Hawaii judge’s revocation of Trump’s travel ban, but after Manchester, they’ll have to sit on it for a few weeks.
Wouldn’t you rather be defending Trump for imposing a travel ban, building a wall and deporting “Dreamers,” than for idiotic leaks about nothing? If Trump started removing undesirable foreigners, liberals would rush back to the airports, en masse, and forget all about Russia.
The most humane response to terrorist attacks in the West is to kill a bunch of them for revenge, and then concentrate on our own problems. Instead of sending ground troops to Syria, we should be sending them to San Diego.
Our policy following every Islamic terrorist attack anyplace in the West should be the following:
1) We drop a nuke on some majority-Muslim city involved in terrorism.
2) We add six months to the immigration moratorium (which Trump promised us in his Aug. 16, 2015, immigration policy paper, the greatest political document since the Magna Carta).
3) We deport one Ninth Circuit judge.
Since Trump, politics has become a game to liberals. The media is a game. Hollywood is a game. Islamic terrorists are killing little girls in England. This isn’t a game.
COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
For the French establishment, Sunday’s presidential election came close to a near-death experience. As the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo, it was a “damn near-run thing.”
Neither candidate of the two major parties that have ruled France since Charles De Gaulle even made it into the runoff, an astonishing repudiation of France’s national elite.
Marine Le Pen of the National Front ran second with 21.5 percent of the vote. Emmanuel Macron of the new party En Marche! won 23.8 percent.
Macron is a heavy favorite on May 7. The Republicans’ Francois Fillon, who got 20 percent, and the Socialists’ Benoit Hamon, who got less than 7 percent, both have urged their supporters to save France by backing Macron.
Ominously for U.S. ties, 61 percent of French voters chose Le Pen, Fillon or radical Socialist Jean-Luc Melenchon. All favor looser ties to America and repairing relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Le Pen has a mountain to climb to win, but she is clearly the favorite of the president of Russia, and perhaps of the president of the United States. Last week, Donald Trump volunteered:
“She’s the strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France. … Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.”
As an indicator of historic trends in France, Le Pen seems likely to win twice the 18 percent her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, won in 2002, when he lost in the runoff to Jacques Chirac.
The campaign between now and May 7, however, could make the Trump-Clinton race look like an altarpiece of democratic decorum.
Not only are the differences between the candidates stark, Le Pen has every incentive to attack to solidify her base and lay down a predicate for the future failure of a Macron government.
And Macron is vulnerable. He won because he is fresh, young, 39, and appealed to French youth as the anti-Le Pen. A personification of Robert Redford in “The Candidate.”
But he has no established party behind him to take over the government, and he is an ex-Rothschild banker in a populist environment where bankers are as welcome as hedge-fund managers at a Bernie Sanders rally.
He is a pro-EU, open-borders transnationalist who welcomes new immigrants and suggests that acts of Islamist terrorism may be the price France must pay for a multiethnic and multicultural society.
Macron was for a year economic minister to President Francois Hollande who has presided over a 10 percent unemployment rate and a growth rate that is among the most anemic in the entire European Union.
He is offering corporate tax cuts and a reduction in the size of a government that consumes 56 percent of GDP, and presents himself as the “president of patriots to face the threat of nationalists.”
His campaign is as much “us vs. them” as Le Pen’s.
And elite enthusiasm for Macron seems less rooted in any anticipation of future greatness than in the desperate hope he can save the French establishment from the dreaded prospect of Marine.
But if Macron is the present, who owns the future?
Across Europe, as in France, center-left and center-right parties that have been on the scene since World War II appear to be emptying out like dying churches. The enthusiasm and energy seem to be in the new parties of left and right, of secessionism and nationalism.
The problem for those who believe the populist movements of Europe have passed their apogee, with losses in Holland, Austria and, soon, France, that the fever has broken, is that the causes of the discontent that spawned these parties are growing stronger.
What are those causes?
A growing desire by peoples everywhere to reclaim their national sovereignty and identity, and remain who they are. And the threats to ethnic and national identity are not receding, but growing.
The tide of refugees from the Middle East and Africa has not abated. Weekly, we read of hundreds drowning in sunken boats that tried to reach Europe. Thousands make it. But the assimilation of Third World peoples in Europe is not proceeding. It seems to have halted.
Second-generation Muslims who have lived all their lives in Europe are turning up among the suicide bombers and terrorists.
Fifteen years ago, al-Qaida seemed confined to Afghanistan. Now it is all over the Middle East, as is ISIS, and calls for Islamists in Europe to murder Europeans inundate social media.
As the numbers of native-born Europeans begin to fall, with their anemic fertility rates, will the aging Europeans become more magnanimous toward destitute newcomers who do not speak the national language or assimilate into the national culture, but consume its benefits?
If a referendum were held across Europe today, asking whether the mass migrations from the former colonies of Africa and the Middle East have on balance made Europe a happier and better place to live in in recent decades, what would that secret ballot reveal?
Does Macron really represent the future of France, or is he perhaps one of the last men of yesterday?