There are two different attacks, so be sure to watch the whole video. It’s less than four minutes long.
Mainstream media falsely refers to Somalian rapist Mohamed Harir Ayanle as a “Minneapolis man,” then later refuses to report whether or not he showed up for his court hearing
In September 2016, President Obama allowed a guy from Somali named Mohamed Harir Ayanle to enter the U.S.
Three months later, Ayanle raped a woman on a bus in Polk County, Minnesota.
However, the mainstream media falsely referred to him as a “Minneapolis man.”
This December 12, 2016 article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press is titled
“Minneapolis man charged with raping female passenger on intercity bus”
The first sentence of the article is
“A Minneapolis man could spend 30 years behind bars after being charged with raping a woman on Jefferson Lines bus on Friday afternoon.”
In the entire article, there is nothing to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minnesota.
The article has no use of any word such as “Somalia,” “Somali,” “Somalian,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” or any other such word, to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minneapolis.
Likewise, this December 13, 2016 article from KSTP, the ABC News affiliate in St. Paul, Minnesota, is titled
“Minneapolis Man Accused of Raping Woman on Bus Heading to North Dakota”
Also, the first sentence of the article is
“A Minneapolis man has been charged after a woman said he raped her in the back of a bus.”
And again, the article has no use of any word such as “Somalia,” “Somali,” “Somalian,” “immigrant,” “migrant,” or any other such word, to indicate that Ayanle is from anywhere other than Minneapolis.
The news is supposed to report facts. It is a fact that Ayanle is Somalian. He is not a “Minneapolis man.” The mainstream media gave false information in its “news” reports.
Another thing about the media’s treatment of this incident raises huge red flags. The December 12, 2016 St. Paul Pioneer Press article ends with the following:
“Ayanle was released from custody Monday on a $5,000 bond on the condition that he does not leave Minnesota. His next court appearance is scheduled for Jan. 3.”
Why in the world did the judge in question think that Ayanle would stay in Minnesota, or show up for the January 3, 2017 court appearance?
The very bus that Ayanle was on when he committed the rape was headed to Grand Forks, North Dakota.
At the very time that Ayanle committed the rape, he was already headed out of Minnesota.
No rational person would expect Ayanle to return for the January 3, 2017 court appearance.
As I sit here writing this, it is now February 10, 2017. So it’s been more than five weeks since the January 3, 2017 court appearance was supposed to take place.
And yet this google search doesn’t show any new information about Ayanle. Instead, all we get are the articles about his initial arrest from December 2017.
So where is Ayanle on this day of February 10, 2017?
Did he show up for the January 3, 2017 court appearance?
Did he flee Minnesota?
I can’t find any news articles to answer any of these questions.
Starbucks recently announced that it will hire 10,000 refugees worldwide over the next five years.
I agree with Starbucks.
It is extremely important for refugees to be assimilated into their new home. Besides learning the language of their new home, obtaining a job is the most important part of this assimilation.
Refugees – real refugees, that is – are fleeing from horrifying atrocities that most of us cannot comprehend.
A real refugee is someone who is very much opposed to the policies of the country from which they fled. A real refugee does not try to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
For example, consider this story of real refugee Brigitte Gabriel:
Brigitte Gabriel, born October 21, 1964, is a conservative American journalist, author, political lecturer, anti-Islamic activist, and founder of two non-profit political organizations, the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America. She has given hundreds of lectures and frequently speaks at American conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Christians United for Israel, Evangelicals, and Jewish groups.
Her sometimes controversial statements include that Islam keeps countries backward and that it teaches terrorism.
Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She recalls that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family’s house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food. She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers.
According to Gabriel, at one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine.
Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She says of the experience:
“I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen…These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped.”
Brigitte Gabriel is a real refugee. She has assimilated very well. She has not tried to turn the U.S. into the same kind of hellhole form which she fled. I support letting real refugees like her into the U.S.
I will gladly support the U.S. taking in one million real refugees like her each and every year.
By comparison, a fake refugee is someone who refuses to assimilate, and instead, tries to turn their new home into the same kind of hellhole from which they fled.
There are plenty of fake refugees living in the city of Hamtramck, Michigan. The reason that I call them fake refugees instead of real refugees is because instead of assimilating into their new home, they are passing laws that force their way of life on to the long term residents of their new home.
According to this article from the Washington Post, Hamtramck is the first Muslim majority city in the U.S., and Muslims make up the majority of its city council. So far, this Muslim majority city council has done at least two things to force the rest of the city to adopt the Muslim way of life.
First, the city council banned business owners within 500 feet of any of the city’s mosques from obtaining a liquor license.
Secondly, the city gave all of these mosques an exemption from the city’s noise ordinance, so they can use electronic amplification to loudly broadcast the Muslim call to prayer five times a day, every day. Residents who live near these mosques have complained that this wakes them up at 6 a.m.
It is because of these two things – things where the Muslims have used the government to force their way of life on to unwilling participants – that I refer to them as fake refugees instead of real refugees.
If liberals want U.S. citizens to be more tolerant of refugees, then I suggest that liberals put an end to this kind of nonsense, instead of supporting it, as they currently do.
I support taking in real refugees – the kind who want to assimilate, and who would never try to turn their new home into the kind of hellhole from which they have fled.
I have nothing against real refugees who want to practice Islam on their own, without forcing it on to unwilling participants.
But when fake refugees use the government to force their way of life onto the long term residents of their new home, such as by banning liquor licenses in their new home, and by using electronic amplification to loudly force their call to prayer into the homes of unwilling participants who are trying to sleep, then no, I don’t want them – these fake refugees – in our country.
If liberals want people to be more welcoming to refugees, then liberals need to acknowledge this distinction between real refugees and fake refugees.
Huffington Post says it’s “Islamophobic” to say women’s march organizer Linda Sarsour supports Sharia law, but doesn’t mention her tweets that support Sharia law
The Gateway Pundit recently published this article about Linda Sarsour, who organized the recent women’s march against Donald Trump. The article states that Sarsour supports Sharia law, and as evidence, includes these two tweets:
The Huffington Post responded by publishing this article, which says that the Gateway Pundit and other websites had
“… deployed classic Islamophobic tactics in trying to discredit Sarsour, claiming… that she supports the spread of Sharia in the U.S….”
Nowhere in that article does the Huffington Post actually say anything about Sarsour’s two tweets.
Organizer For DC Women’s March, Linda Sarsour Is Pro Sharia Law with Ties To Hamas
January 21, 2017
She also advocates for Sharia Law in America and has ties to terrorist organization, Hamas.
Linda Sarsour is very active on Twitter. She is pro Sharia law and a couple of her tweets even have a seditious tone to them where she romanticizes Sharia law and hints at it taking over America whereby we would have interest free loans.
German court says people named “Mohammad” were “justified” in setting fire to a synagogue, and gives them zero jail time
German court calls synagogue torching an act to ‘criticize Israel’
January 13, 2017
A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city’s synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies.
Johannes Pinnel, a spokesman for the regional court in Wuppertal, outlined the court’s decision in a statement.
Three German Palestinians sought to torch the Wuppertal synagogue with Molotov cocktails in July, 2014. The local Wuppertal court panel said in its 2015 decision that the three men wanted to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict” with Israel. The court deemed the attack not to be motivated by antisemitism.
Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 to stop Hamas rocket attacks into Israeli territory.
The court sentenced the three men – the 31-year-old Mohamad E., the 26 year-old Ismail A. and the 20-year-old Mohammad A.—to suspended sentences. The men tossed self-made Molotov cocktails at the synagogue. German courts frequently decline to release the last names of criminals to protect privacy.
The attack caused €800 damage to the synagogue. The original synagogue in Wuppertal was burned by Germans during the Kristallnacht pogroms in 1938. Wuppertal has a population of nearly 344,000 and is located in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.
The court said the men had consumed alcohol and there were no injuries to members of the synagogue.
A 13-year-old who lived near the synagogue and noticed the flames informed the police. Several days before the fire, a person sprayed “Free Palestine” on a wall of the synagogue.
After the local Wuppertal court decision in 2015, Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP, said the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by antisemitism” and blasted the court for issuing a decision stating that the goal of the attack was to highlight the war in Gaza.
“This is a mistaken decision as far as the motives of the perpetrators are concerned,” he said, adding that the burning of a synagogue in Germany because of the Middle East conflict can be attributed only to antisemitism.
“What do Jews in Germany have to do with the Middle East conflict? Every bit as much as Christians, non-religious people or Muslims in Germany, namely, absolutely nothing. The ignorance of the judiciary toward anti-Semitism is for many Jews in Germany especially alarming, ” said Beck.
The population of Morocco is 99% Muslim.
Geert Wilders guilty of ‘insulting a group’ after hate speech trial
December 9, 2016
The Dutch far-right opposition leader Geert Wilders was convicted Friday of inciting discrimination and “insulting a group” after a trial over statements he made about Moroccans.
But the court found him not guilty of incitement to hatred and handed down no punishment.
Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), was charged after inciting supporters into a chant calling for fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands in 2014.
According to a court statement, Wilders asked his audience: “Do you want more or less Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”
The audience repeatedly chanted “less.”
The court said that Wilders “singled out an entire group of citizens” and that the message “came through loud and clear.” It convicted him of insulting a group and incitement to discrimination.
But the court found insufficient evidence to find him guilty of incitement to hatred.
The court, which could have fined Wilders, decided that verdicts were sufficient punishment and imposed no further penalty.
The 53-year-old far-right leader has campaigned against “Islamic immigration.”
“Three PVV-hating judges just declared Moroccans a race and convicted me, as well as half of the Dutch population,” Wilders tweeted shortly after the ruling.
Wilders said in a Twitter post ahead of the verdict Friday morning that he will “continue to speak the truth about the Moroccan problem.”
“No judge, politician or terrorist will stop me,” he added.
Wilders has previously called Islamic immigration “an invasion” that will “replace our people” and “erase our culture.”
Among his other policies, Wilders has called for a referendum on the Netherlands’ membership in the European Union, and a full burqa ban.
Wilders, 53, came to international attention in 2008 with the provocative online film “Fitna,” which juxtaposed the aftermath of terrorist attacks with verses from the Quran.
Known as much for his anti-Muslim views as his bleached hair, Wilders has been called “Europe’s Donald Trump” — with his party gaining popularity in recent years.
It’s not the first time Wilders has appeared in court on hate speech charges.
In 2011 he was acquitted of inciting hatred against Muslims, after calling for the Quran to be banned in the Netherlands.
Friday’s verdict comes three months ahead of the country’s parliamentary election in March, when Wilders will be vying for the top job of prime minister.
The opposition party leader will face current prime minister Mark Rutte, whose conservative People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) rules in a coalition with the the Labour Party (PvdA).
Rutte said at a press conference Friday that neither he nor his party would be willing to govern with Wilders unless he retracted his comments about Moroccans.
Wilders has run on a party manifesto focused on a so-called “de-Islamification” of the Netherlands, in which he lays out an 11-point plan pledging, among other things, to shut down all the country’s Islamic schools and close the borders to migrants from Islamic nations.
‘No Borders’ activist gang raped by migrants, pressured into silence to not ‘damage cause’
October 6, 2015
A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”
Colleagues are alleged to have said that reporting the crime would set back their struggle for a borderless world.
The ‘No Borders’ activist had dedicated a month of her life to helping migrants. Her group was stationed between Italy and France in Ponte San Ludovico in Ventimiglia when the atrocity occurred, according to reports from local papers La Stampa and Il Secolo XIX, and now reported in the major Italian national Corriere Della Serra.
One Saturday night, as loud music played at a nearby party, the woman was reportedly trapped in a shower block set up near the camp in a pine forest know as Red Leap.
A gang of African migrants allegedly raped her there, and her cries for help are said to have gone unheard because of the music.
La Stampa reports that the woman, around 30 years of age, would have reported the horrific crime were if not for her fellow left-wing activists, who convinced her that if the truth got out it could damage their utopian dream of a world without borders.
But Corriere Della Serra also reports that some of her fellow activists are now accusing the woman of reporting the rape out of “spite,” because her group was withdrawn from the camp following a separate controversy.
The town of Ventimiglia, where the alleged crime occurred, has been a flashpoint in the ongoing migrant crisis.
On the 30th September around 50 migrants and 20 activists were cleared from an illegal camp there. The activists organised a protest, whereby 250 migrants conducted a “sit in” on the shoreline.
Yesterday, Osman Suliman, 20, a Sudanese asylum seeker who had been in the UK for just five months, appeared in court.
He was charged with the rape of a Nottingham woman last weekend, the 26th of September, The Nottingham Post reports.
Netherlands: Government-funded watchdog says it’s ok for Muslims to send death threats to gays
December 3, 2016
“The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be ‘burned, decapitated and slaughtered.’” Yet this “anti-discrimination watchdog” refused to pursue the case, writing: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.”
In their globalist ardor to appease and accommodate Islamic supremacists, there seems to be no absurdity that is out of bounds for the political elites.
“Fury as watchdog says it’s OK to send gay people death threats – but only if you’re Muslim,” by Nick Gutteridge, Express, December 3, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
FURIOUS Dutch MPs have demanded an immediate public inquiry after a government-backed watchdog said it was acceptable for Muslims to send gay people death threats.
In a shocking move, the taxpayer-funded hotline said it would not pursue a criminal complaint over horrific messages from radical Islamists because the Koran says gay people can be killed.
The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughtered”.
Dutch MPs today reacted with horror to the revelations, demanding an immediate inquiry into the remarks and calling for the hotline to be stripped of public funding.
According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character.”
They concluded that the remarks were made in “the context of a public debate about how to interpret the Quran” and added that “some Muslims understand from the Quran that gays should be killed”.
And they went on: “In the context of religious expression that exists in the Netherlands there is a large degree of freedom of expression. In addition, the expressions are used in the context of the public debate (how to interpret the Koran), which also removes the offending character.”
The death threats had been made in the comments section for an article about a Dutch-Moroccan gay society, which had been posted to an online platform for Holland’s large Moroccan community….
The U.K. city that knowingly allowed Muslim men to repeatedly rape 1,400 girls for 16 years is trying to stop people from talking about it
In Rotherham, U.K., between 1997 and 2013, police, social workers, and the media knew that Muslim men were repeatedly raping 1,400 girls, but they did nothing to try to stop it, because they did not want to be accused of “racism.” You can read about it here, here, and here.
Since this information has become public, the city is trying to stop people from talking about it:
Police and council move to ban Rotherham abuse protests
May 23, 2015
Police and council bosses are to apply to the Government to have protest marches by extremist groups in Rotherham outlawed.
Rotherham Council’s commissioners have written to Home Secretary Theresa May advising her they are planning to make a joint submission with South Yorkshire Police asking to be allowed the special powers.
They want to be granted powers under the Public Order Act that would allow for the banning of public marches of an initial period of up to three months.
It follows around £2m being spent on policing marches and protests in Rotherham from groups including the English Defence League, Britain First and the Yorkshire Infidels, as well as counter-demonstrations from organisations such as Unite Against Fascism and British Muslim Youth.
The most expensive and high-profile operations followed the publication of the Jay report in August, which revealed South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham Council had failed at least 1,400 victims of child sexual exploitation over a 16-year-period, with many of the main offenders being men of Pakistani origin.
A protest by the EDL and other right-wing groups in the town on September 13 ran up a policing bill of more than £1m, as over 1,000 officers from across the country were sent to Rotherham.
A further £250,000 was also spent on an operation monitoring a group of EDL protesters who set up camp outside Rotherham police station between August 29 and September 13 to demand the resignation of police and crime commissioner Shaun Wright, who had been responsible for children’s services at Rotherham Council between 2005 and 2010.
In March, members of the extreme right-wing group the South East Alliance were prevented from entering Rotherham, with arrests made under breach of the peace powers. This operation cost more than £150,000.
The £1.8m bill between 2013 and 2015 does not include Saturday’s demonstration by the South East Alliance group, who were joined by members of the EDL and the National Front.
In her letter to the Home Secretary, Commissioner Mary Ney said while it is hoped the costs of policing the marches will be met through a Home Office grant, the public money that has gone on dealing with the demonstrations could be ‘better spent’.
She said: “Over an extended period, the town has been subject to a significant number of events by right-wing groups, and counter demonstrations by left wing groups. This has, and continues to, consume a vast amount of police resource, both within and outside South Yorkshire, at significant cost to the public purse.
“However, more significant is the damage to the reputation of the town, and the impact that this has had on the town centre in particular, which has been the focus of these events.
“Due to their regularity there is a real perception amongst people using the town that it is not safe, and that there are protests every Saturday.
“Footfall is significantly down, and a number of retailers are facing closure. Further marches and demonstrations can only worsen this position.
“The town needs to move on and further events will be damaging both to community cohesion, and the ability of the town to recover.”
Commissioner Ney said conditions to control where marches go or how long they last do ‘not deal with the cumulative impact that these events have on the community, or the town centre businesses’.
She added: “Whilst we realise that people have a democratic right to assemble and protest under the European conventions, that freedom has been exercised on numerous occasions, by many different groups, all protesting about the same issue.
“That voice has been heard, and all groups have had the opportunity to protest in Rotherham town centre many times.”
She said it is ‘considered legitimate to interfere with that right’ on the grounds that it will prevent serious disorder, protect the rights of traders and the public to go about their business and ‘enable the town to move on following the publication of the Jay and Casey reports’.
A spokeswoman for South Yorkshire Police said: “We respect the right to peaceful protest but this must be balanced against the rights of the wider community to go about their daily lives.
“We welcome Commissioner Ney’s letter to the Home Office highlighting the difficult position Rotherham is facing and the desire of all agencies to move forward and rebuild the reputation of the town.”
Protest After Migrants Gang Rape Woman In Wheelchair
October 12, 2016
A wheelchair-bound Swedish woman says she was gang-raped by five migrants who were then released days after their arrest, as the victim allegedly did not do enough to fight off her attackers, according to prosecutors.
The incident has sparked outrage and protest in the town of Visby, on the Baltic island of Gotland, due to the authorities’ refusal to detain or report the nationalities of the attackers.
The unnamed disabled woman, in her thirties, had asked to use a toilet at a nearby asylum centre after sharing a taxi with one of its residents on the 2nd of October.
However, after she was invited inside, the man and six of his fellow migrants attacked her, taking turns to rape the woman for several hours at the facility in Visby.
Authorities have attempted to shield the identities of the attackers, in line with Swedish police policy that protects the ethnicity of criminals when they are non-Swedish, in a bid to protect the force from accusations of racism.
Despite the attackers being arrested on the evening of the alleged attack, they were released just days later. The migrants denied the attack and it was said that as the woman did not resist sufficiently, the incident can not be classed as rape according to Swedish law.
“The act is not based on violence or threats without having exhausted her special situation,” prosecutor Mats Wihlborg told Aftonbladet, claiming the “claimant’s story is not so robust that it can be the basis for an arrest”.
Hundreds of local residents took matters into their own hands, protesting outside the migrant centre on more than one occasion, sending the town into chaos such that extra police had to be brought in from other regions.
The victim’s lawyer, Staffan Fredriksson, argued that the disabled women was “paralyzed” and could not have fought back. He said:
“She followed him in and had no fears that something would happen. Then the man took advantage of the situation. The abuse started in the toilet.
“Where they came from we don’t know. This was going on for a couple of hours. She got paralyzed in this situation and was not able to bring herself to resist physically, other than saying no.”
He added: “She is completely broken down.”
Sweden accepted more so-called refugees per capita that any other European nation last year and the liberal government is now facing a backlash.
At the beginning of this month, it was reported that the proportion of Swedes who want their country to accept fewer refugees has almost doubled in a year, meaning a strong majority – 60 per cent – now support slashing immigration.
In contrast, only 13 per cent said they thought more refugees should be accepted – more than halving from 31 per cent in 2015.
Austrian Supreme Court overturns conviction of Iraqi immigrant who raped 10-year-old boy in swimming pool
Man who raped 10-year-old boy at swimming pool in Austria has sentence overturned by Supreme Court
Judges say lower court had not established whether attacker thought boy consented to sex
October 24, 2016
A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented.
Police said the 20-year-old Iraqi refugee, who has not been named, assaulted his victim in a toilet cubicle at the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna on 2 December last year.
The child reported the rape to a lifeguard and his attacker was arrested at the scene, reportedly telling officers in initial interviews that he was experiencing a “sexual emergency” after not having sex in four months.
In June, he was jailed for a minimum of six years for rape and aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, and ordered to pay €4,700 (£3,700) compensation to the boy’s family.
But on Thursday, Austria’s Supreme Court overturned the rape conviction and ordered a re-trial on the charge.
While the sexual abuse verdict was “watertight”, the more serious offence requires evidence that the defendant knew their victim did not consent to sex.
Supreme Court judges ruled that the first court should have established whether the attacker thought his victim agreed to a sexual act and intended to act against the boy’s will.
“This intention was not sufficiently established, so the Supreme Court quashed the rape conviction,” Austria’s national ORF broadcaster reported.
The re-trial is not expected to begin until next year, with the defendant remaining in custody.
The unnamed man worked in Iraq as a taxi driver before leaving in 2015 and journeying to Europe and settling in Vienna.
His trip to the swimming pool was said to be part of integration efforts, sparking outrage amid tensions over the refugee crisis in Austria.
Speaking to local media, the victim’s mother revealed her son had been “screaming and crying every night” since the attack and had talked of suicide.
Prosecutors said the boy, known as Goran, suffered serious physical injuries from the rape as well as “profound depression”.
The attack sparked a backlash against migrants in the country, which has since seen support for anti-immigration groups rise and implemented a controversial cap on refugee numbers.
Reports of sexual harassment and attacks by asylum seekers at swimming pools have generated controversy across Europe, sparking a ban on male migrants at one pool in Germany and “vigilante” patrols in Sweden.
Police statistics in Germany showed that sex offences make up a tiny proportion of crimes committed by refugees and migrants in the country, which are mostly related to transport and documents.
Snopes says the reason that Sweden recently banned Christmas lights on street poles is because of “safety concerns”
Snopes recently published this article, which addresses claims by other sources which say that Sweden recently banned Christmas lights on street poles in order to avoid offending Muslims. Snopes says that, yes, Sweden did indeed recently ban Christmas lights on street poles, but also says that, no, it was not to avoid offending Muslims, and that, instead, it was for “safety concerns.”
I don’t know how long Sweden has been putting Christmas lights on street poles, but I’m guessing that they’ve been doing it for many decades. So the claim that such lights have all of a sudden become a “safety concern” is something that I am very skeptical of.
If anything, the recent worldwide switch from incandescent bulbs to LEDs should make the lights less of a safety concern, because the newer lights generate less heat, weigh less, and use less electricity.
On the other hand, given the many other recent changes to its traditional way of life that Sweden has made in order to avoid offending Muslims, such as its recent adoption of segregated swimming pools, it seems quite plausible that the real reason for its recent ban on Christmas lights on street poles is indeed to avoid offending Muslims.
Do the Democrats Really Care About Anti-Semitism?
By Robert Spencer
November 15, 2016
When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course.
President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.
“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”
The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”
Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”
Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”
Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”
It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.
Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.
Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.
That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.
Italy: African Muslim destroys invaluable historic statues in four Roman churches, terrorizes tourists (two minute video)
Europe tells British press NOT to reveal if terrorists are Muslims
October 6, 2016
Meddling Brussels has said the British press should not report when terrorists are Muslims in a slew of demands to the Government to crack down on the media.
A report from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found there was an increase in hate speech and racist violence in the UK from 2009 to March 2016.
Blaming the press, ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: “It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.”
The report makes a whopping 23 recommendations to Theresa May’s Government for changes to criminal law, the freedom of the press, crime reporting and equality law.
And despite the report not analysing coverage of the historic Brexit vote, Mr Ahlund saw fit to comment on the UK’s decision to leave the EU.
In a sweeping statement, he said: “The Brexit referendum seems to have led to a further rise in ‘anti-foreigner’ sentiment, making it even more important that the British authorities take the steps outlined in our report as a matter of priority.”
The report lays into the British press and urges the government to “give more rigorous training” to reporters.
In the 83-page report, the Commission said: “ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
“In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.”
Despite the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) in 2014 as an independent regulator for newspapers and magazines, the “ECRI strongly recommends that the authorities find a way to establish an independent press regulator according to the recommendations set out in the Leveson Report. It recommends more rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards.”
But as Britain prepares to leave the crumbling bloc, the Government waded in to defend freedom of expression.
In a written statement to the ECRI, the Government said: “The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law.”
ECRI is a human rights body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts, which monitors problems of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, intolerance and racial discrimination.
The group writes reports on every member state every five years and says the documents are “analyses based on a great deal of information gathered from a wide variety of sources.
ECRI visited the UK in November 2015 as it gathered evidence for the report.
In a statement, ECRI said: “ECRI welcomed, among other things, the entry into force of the Equality Act 2010 and the generally strong legislation against racism and racial discrimination in the country, as well as the government’s new hate crime action plan and substantial efforts to promote LGBT rights in the UK which have led to a significant change in attitudes.
“At the same time, the commission noted considerable intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration. It said that hate speech continues to be a serious problem in tabloid newspapers, and that online hate speech targeting Muslims in particular has soared since 2013.”