republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Red Flag Laws – Should Constitutional Rights be so easily infringed?
Pittsburgh, Penn. –-( Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto signed three new bills that restrict the use of some semi-automatic such as the AR15 within the city limits, limit magazine size, and enacts a “Red Flag Law” this past Tuesday.
The city deems these laws necessary after the Tree of Life Shooting. In that shooting, a Nazi walked into a synagogue and killed eleven unarmed people. Investigators determined that the killer’s motive was Antisemitism.
The city admitted that they could not outright ban the popular rifle, but the attorneys for Pittsburgh believe that they can legally bar the use of the gun. This ban would also affect gun owners using their rifles at shooting ranges.
After signing the bill Mayor, Bill Peduto said, “If we didn't challenge laws, women wouldn't be able to vote.”
The Democrat didn't elaborate on how banning the use of semi-automatic rifles is related to women's suffrage. The media present did not challenge the Mayor on this point. AmmoLand reached out to Peduto's office in a request for clarity on the comment, but the office did not respond to our request.
“Change doesn’t happen on its own, change only happens when you challenge the status quo,” Mayor Peduto said before signing the bills. “We have tried to get that change through Harrisburg, we have tried to get that change through Washington, and we have taken steps backward, not forward. So what we’re saying is in communities across this state … in cities around this country, we will take action.”
The bill would also prevent a gun owner from having their rifle loaded. The city strategy is to try to make owning a semi-automatic rifle useless since if the owner shoots and even chambers a round they would be in violation of the law and face a heavy legal penalty of up to a $1000 fine.
Twenty years ago, the city of Pittsburgh tried to ban semi-automatic rifles, but the courts ruled that only the state had the power to ban a certain type of gun. The city sees this bill as a workaround to that ruling
A second bill would also make it illegal for Pittsburgh residents to have a loaded magazine if that magazine is capable of holding more than ten rounds. The City incorrectly labels these as “large capacity” magazines. This ban means residents can still own the magazines but can't load them thus making them useless. This bill seems like another workaround to the current law.
Stack Pile Ammunition Gun Magazines High Capacity StandardStock Pile Ammunition Gun Magazines High Capacity Standard
The NRA and four residences have already filed a civil suit titled “Anderson v. City of Pittsburgh.” The lawsuit claims that “by banning the public possession and transportation of loaded standard-capacity firearm magazines that can carry more than ten rounds of ammunition, Pittsburgh has violated the rights of its citizens and exceeded its authority under Pennsylvania law.”
“Pittsburgh residents have a right to carry the self-defense tool that best suits their needs, and the NRA is proud to support this challenge to the city’s magazine ban,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “Restricting law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights will do nothing to stop violent criminals.”
The third bill is a Red Flag law. These Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) allows police to confiscate a person's guns without due process. If a family member, friend, or roommate report to the police that you are a risk to yourself or others they can go to a secret court to get an ERPO to take all your firearms.
Gun rights and civil liberties advocates point out that the burden of proof to get an ERPO issued is very low. The target of the order is also not present to defend themselves in front of the judge. It could take months and thousands of dollars for the gun owners to get their firearms back after being a victim of an ERPO.
One person died in Maryland when police tried to serve an ERPO to take his firearms. In that case, the victim's niece said her uncle was not a danger to anyone. She said her aunt took out the order because it was “just a family thing.”
In January, hundreds of protesters with the same firearms the city was looking to ban protested outside the city council meeting. Many were chanting “we will not comply. It is clear that there is widespread opposition to the bills, but the pressure was put on the city by groups such as Moms Demand Action to enact the legislation. In the end, the council gave into their Democratic base.
It is unclear how the city plans to enforce the laws because enforcement will be dangerous for gun owners and law enforcement alike.
About John CrumpJohn Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at

Oregon: Committee Passes Insane 45-Page Gun Control Package

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Opinion Update: Oregon Firearms Federation Calls for OR Republicans to WALK OUT Over SB 978, read more.

Take Action OregonTake Action Oregon
Fairfax, VA – -( On April 9th 2019, the Oregon state Senate Judiciary Committee voted to approve Senate Bill 978 with the -5 Amendment.  This legislation is an omnibus gun control package that, among other things, would require firearms be kept unavailable for self-defense and would also expand gun free zones where law-abiding individuals would be left defenseless.  It will now go to the Senate floor for further consideration.  Please contact your state Senator and urge them to OPPOSE SB 978.  Click the “Take Action” button below to contact your state Senator.
Take Action Button
Senate Bill 978 as passed out of committee would:
  • Legalize age discrimination for firearm dealers to allow them to refuse service to young adults for no reason other than being under the age of 21.
  • Impose a one-size-fits-all government solution for firearm storage and require them to be made unavailable for self-defense.
  • Further victimize gun owners who have suffered a loss or theft of their property with criminal penalties if they fail to follow certain requirements when reporting them, including holding the gun owner strictly liable for the future illegal acts committed by criminals using the stolen firearm.
  • End the centuries old practice of home manufacturing firearms for lawful, personal use.
  • Allow local governments to create “gun-free zones” in public buildings, colleges, and airports where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and left defenseless against criminals who ignore such arbitrary boundaries
  • Increase the fee to apply for a Concealed Handgun License.
Again, please click the “Take Action” button above to contact your state Senator and urge them to OPPOSE SB 978.
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
About: Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Ilhan Omar has shown herself to be deeply anti-Semitic and has spoken for the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations. In a sane political and media culture, she would be shunned by the Democrat leadership and harshly criticized in the media. Instead, she is lauded and celebrated, as by Newsweek here. Why? Apparently their objective is to normalize and mainstream her anti-Semitism, which is already the dominant view among Leftists.
“Rep. Omar Featured on Newsweek Cover: ‘Changing the Conversation on Israel,’” by Aaron Bandler, Jewish Journal, April 9, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is being featured on the cover of Newsweek’s April 19 issue, with the story talking about how she is “changing the conversation about Israel.”
The Newsweek story, which was published online on April 9, states that Omar was frequently targeted by Republicans in speeches during the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs) conference in March for “using language easily regarded as anti-Semitic.” The article refers to AIPAC has having a “formidable political operation” that has promulgated “a decidedly unequal view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The article goes on to describe Omar “as the most voluble—and visible—of Israel’s critics.”
“She appears to embrace the role of a political provocateur, particularly when it comes to foreign policy,” the article states. “Omar articulates a view that is rarely heard from a sitting member of Congress, one that has been forged from her first-hand experiences of war and exile.”
Among those coming to Omar’s defense in the piece are Nihad Awad, the executive director of Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), stating that Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are “not trying to fit into the historical Washington mindset, which has been unjustly pro-Israel for decades. And they represent a whole new generation of progressive activists nationwide.”
Some Democrats are concerned about Omar, as the Newsweek article notes that the Democratic Majority for Israel was recently formed by veteran Democrats to support pro-Israel Democrats in response to concerns “that the influence of Omar and other progressives will erode support for Israel within the Democratic Party.”
The Newsweek article touts “Omar and her progressive supporters” as “the first credible challenge to” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies and the “occupation of the West Bank.”
“Their successful effort to produce a resolution that condemns all forms of bigotry, instead of only Omar and anti-Semitism, was no small accomplishment, given the strength of Israel’s supporters among Democrats,” the article states, referencing the March resolution condemning various forms of bigotry….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Slavery is acceptable in Islam. The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)
Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:
Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.
“German Woman Goes on Trial in Death of 5-Year-Old Girl Held as ISIS Slave,” by Melissa Eddy, New York Times, April 9, 2019:
BERLIN — While devoted followers of the Islamic State, a man and woman bought a 5-year-old Yazidi girl in Iraq to use as a slave, then let her die of thirst in the scorching heat, the German authorities contend. The trial of the woman began on Tuesday — one of the highest-profile cases against a female member of the terrorist group.
The prosecution stems largely from the words of the defendant, who was desperate to return last year to the Islamic State, or ISIS, and found someone willing to drive her to the Middle East. Unknown to her, the driver was working with the German security services, and he recorded their conversations as she told him all about her life in the organization.
The 27-year-old German woman, identified only as Jennifer W. in keeping with German privacy law, showed no emotion during the 15 minutes it took a judge in Munich to read out the charges against her, which include murder, war crimes, membership in a foreign terror organization and weapons violations.
No pleas are entered in German courts and the defendant, wearing a white blouse, black slacks and a black cardigan, declined to make a statement. Her lawyer did not say whether she would say anything during the proceedings, which are scheduled to continue until September.
But the Yazidi girl’s mother, whose identity has not been released, is expected to testify, providing both key evidence and the emotional heart of the case. The mother, who says she was also held as a slave by the German woman and her husband, is serving as a co-plaintiff in the trial but was not in court for the opening proceedings….
According to the indictment, Jennifer W. and her husband “bought a 5-year-old girl in summer 2015 from a group of prisoners of war and kept her in their home as a slave.”
“After the girl fell ill and wet her mattress, the defendant’s husband punished the girl by chaining her up outside in the searing heat and leaving her in great agony to die of thirst,” prosecutors said. “The defendant let her husband do as he liked, and took no action to save the girl.”…
In the case of Jennifer W., prosecutors were helped by her own eagerness to tell the man who offered to drive her as far as Turkey about her life in ISIS. American intelligence officials had tipped off their colleagues in Germany about the woman, allowing the Germans to set her up with a driver, whose car was bugged, German news media reported.
She told the driver about leaving her home in northwestern Germany in August 2014, and making her way through Turkey and Syria to Iraq. Once she arrived, prosecutors said, she joined the Islamic State and swiftly rose through the ranks, becoming a member of the Hisbah, the morality police, patrolling the parks of the Iraqi cities of Falluja and Mosul.
“Her job was to make sure that women were upholding the terror organization’s dress and behavior codes,” they said. “To intimidate them, she carried an AK-47 machine gun, a pistol and an explosive vest.”
In January 2016, she visited the German Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, and the Turkish authorities arrested her. They deported her to Germany, where she was allowed to go free.
According to prosecutors, she spent the next two years working to return to ISIS-controlled territory, and found someone to take her most of the way there. She and the driver set out, and she was arrested last June, after telling her story but before they had left Germany.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In the 20th century, the world’s population increased four times and exceeded 6.5 billion people. the demographic change in the recent decades has seen a rapid growth in the number of Muslims. Since 1990, the number of Muslims in the world has increased from 880 million to 1 billion people. Islam became the fastest growing world religion in terms of the number of adherents, and according to current forecasts, by 2030 there will be at least two billion Muslims on earth out of a total population of 8 billion.
Currently, Islam is already the second largest religion in terms  of followers (after Christianity). More than two thirds of Muslims live in Asia, where they constitute over 20% of the population, and almost 30% in Africa (half of the continent’s population). Muslim communities exist in more than 120 countries of the world, in 35 of them they constitute over 80% of the population (most of them are in the countries of North Africa and West Asia). The largest absolute Muslim communities reside in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sociologists predict that by 2025 in the US, the Islamic community will become the second largest after Christians, overtaking the Jewish one.
Especially rapidly increasing is the number of Muslims in Europe. The largest Muslim community is in France: from 5 to 7 million (up to 10% of the total population), Islam became the second largest religion in the country after Catholicism. Numerous communities of followers of Islam were formed in Germany (4 million), Great Britain (1.7 million), Italy and Holland (1 million each). Significant Muslim communities are scattered throughout all Western European countries.
It should be noted that no one knows the real number of Muslims in Western Europe, since along with the legal immigrants and their descendants, there are many millions of illegal immigrants who are absent in official statistics. According to various estimates, between 15 and 24 million Muslims now live in Western Europe. Demographers predict that by 2025  the number of Muslims in Europe will double due to the high birth rate and mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East.
Islam came to Western Europe just a few decades ago. Until the end of the 1940s, there were very few Muslims. (most in France – 120 thousand in the mid-1920s). The first mass migration was associated with the war in Algeria (1954-1962). After the forced consent of France to the declaration of independence of this North African states, hundreds of thousands of local Muslims took advantage of the opportunity to move to their former metropolis.
As a result of mass migrations from developing countries, the level of ethnic and denominational fragmentation of the population of those European states that were quite homogeneous a few decades ago is constantly increasing. It is fundamentally important that, unlike in past years, a significant part of Muslim migrants and their descendants now do not show a desire to integrate into a new environment for themselves.
The former European model of building a single civic nation within the framework of a national state (like the “melting pot” in the USA) in modern conditions ceases to work. Consequences of this are the concepts of building multicultural, multi-religious, and more recently, multilingual communities within individual states of Western Europe. For adherents of liberalism, these concepts seem to be a logical development of democracy, where minority rights are guaranteed and protected by the state. At the same time, no distinction is made between the “old” and the “new” population: their rights to an original existence are equally protected by a democratic state.
Muslim areas and suburbs appeared in Paris, Berlin, London and many other major European cities. Most modern French Muslims are descendants of the Arab Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco). In Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Denmark, the Muslim community is mainly represented by descendants of Turkish immigrants. British Muslims – most descendants of immigrants from British India (Pakistan and Bangladesh).
The increase in the number of European Muslims is promoted by the high fertility rate encouraged by state social programs. In Muslim families, the average number of children is usually not less than four. Large Muslim families contrasts with the small families and the crisis of traditional family values ​​among the indigenous Europeans. The most important democratic achievement of modern Western civilization proclaimed freedom of homosexual relations, and in a number of countries (Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain and Switzerland, as well as a number of US states) same-sex marriages were legally allowed.
Along with the increase in the number of sexual minorities, the reduction of the indigenous (atheistic or nominally Christian) population of Western Europe is promoted by the conscious rejection of the birth of children, as many Europeans believe that children will interfere with their careers or simply interfere with their usual and comfortable life. Families that have one child, rarely decide on the birth of the second. For simple reproduction of the population, the average birth rate should be 2.1 children. But women in Western Europe, on average, give birth to only 1.4 children. And in the conditions of a progressive decline in the indigenous population of Europe, Muslims successfully fill the demographic vacuum that has formed.
This plays into the feminist propaganda, which asserts that children prevent women from occupying a worthy place in society. The rejection of traditional family values ​​and the moral crisis of society contribute to the growth of the popularity of Islam, even among the indigenous people of Europe. In France, the number of white French Muslims already exceeds 50 thousand, and this far exceeds, for example, the number of Russian Muslims in Russia.
For several decades, the difficulties of a demographic and economic nature have forced the EU countries to legalize and even promote immigration from Muslim countries. European politicians considered it indecent even to ask the question, is modern Europe and Islam compatible in principle? Both did not preached the ideas of tolerance and multiculturalism as for Islam for example unlike what Islam Claims, incompatible with the views of Samuel Huntington, who in his sensational book “The Clash of Civilizations” claimed that Europe and Islam are two antipodes, two initially hostile antagonistic civilizations. On the contrary, the prevailing view was that the integration of the Muslim diaspora into European society would contribute to the rapprochement of Christian and Islamic civilizations.
The rationale for such optimistic ideas were examples when yesterday’s illiterate migrant workers or their descendants successfully fit into European reality, made a successful career, and even became members of the European Parliament. But widely propagated examples of this kind were sporadic; they did not reflect the real picture and only disoriented society, and indeed the political elite of Western Europe.
It is characteristic that, unlike the first wave of immigrants, the rejection of the surrounding reality among Muslims of the second and third generation constantly increased and acquired more and more radical forms. Already in the second half of the 1990s, young Muslims in Europe began to become increasingly intolerant of such European values ​​as sexual equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, ensuring the rights of sexual minorities, etc. In schools that were attended by young Muslims, it became increasingly difficult to teach certain subjects. Over the years, in many schools it has become impossible to teach the history of the Holocaust, the theory of the origin of life, the development of species and humanity, as well as a number of other subjects that seemed completely unacceptable for young Muslims and their parents.
Gradually, in schools with Muslim students, sexual segregation was established: the boys sat down in one part of the class, and the girls – in the other, in hospitals the refusals of treatment by a male doctor or a man – by women became more frequent. Only ten years ago, only old women wore Muslim headscarves. Now they are worn by half of the female Muslim population of France, and in some municipalities of France this figure reaches 80%. Hijabs are increasingly common in other European countries.
Young Muslims in Europe no longer limit themselves to living under the laws of the land. In most cases, Muslim girls and women were not free to choose: many were forced to wear hijabs under the pressure of relatives or the community. According to special studies conducted by the French authorities, in some European cities, a Muslim girl who refuses to wear a headscarf “risks exposure to insults, physical aggression, sexual abuse and even collective rape.” In France, such acts of aggression against dissenters within the Muslim community occur regularly. The growth of Islamic fundamentalism among European Muslims created favorable conditions for the politicization of Islam in Europe.
Until the late 1990s Islamist political parties did not exist in Europe. Now they have appeared in France and Belgium. While these parties are not numerous and are not represented in parliament,  they already have their first successes: in Belgium in May 2003, “Parti de la Citoyennete et Prosperite” (PCP, Citizenship and Prosperity Party), which preaches radical Islam, gained more than 8 thousand votes in the Brussels elections.
Over the past four years, hundreds of acts of aggression by Muslim youth have been witnessed  in European cities, and the number of anti-Semitic demonstrations is constantly growing. According to sociologists, European Muslims do not show tolerance for their fellow citizens in precisely those countries that are most tolerant.
As shown by a sociological study conducted by the pew Washington Research Center in 13 western states, in the UK, while there is the most tolerant attitude of indigenous people towards Muslim immigrants in Europe, there is the most open dislike of Muslims towards Europeans.
In most countries, suspicion and contempt for each other, Muslims and non-Muslims are mostly mutual. But in the UK there is a huge gap in this regard. 63% of Britons treat Muslims positively, this figure has only slightly decreased since 2004 due to explosions in the London Underground. In France, such an attitude can be seen among approximately 60% of citizens, while in the USA, Germany and Spain this figure does not exceed 29%.
Only a third of Britons consider Muslims as cruel and hostile, whereas in Spain about 60% of indigenous people hold this opinion, in Germany – 52%, in the US – 45%, in France – 41%. At the same time, it is in Great Britain that the most negative attitude of local Muslims towards European values ​​is noted in the West. Most of the representatives of the British Ummah consider the people of the Western world to be selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. In the rest of the countries, the majority of Muslims share the respect for Europeans towards women, but in the UK, less than half of Muslim citizens agree with this.
In the UK, only 32% of Muslims are tolerant towards the Jewish community, whereas, for example, in France this figure is 71%. Finally, it is British Muslims who less than others believe in the possibility of their existence in Western society while maintaining the traditional way of life and adherence to conservative values.
At the same time, citizens of Great Britain showed the greatest sympathy, in contrast to other states, for Muslims in the context of a “caricature” scandal. Only 9% of the British respondents believe that the conflicts between Islam and the West that arose on this ground were the result of “Muslim intolerance towards Western freedom”, but about three-quarters of the respondents blamed “disrespect of the West towards Muslims” The same is believed in Muslim countries. 55% of Americans and 2/3 of Germans and French believe that relations between people of the West and Muslims in general leave much to be desired. Some optimism can be had only by the fact that, as studies have shown, in the Muslim communities of Europe,  Muslim attitude to the Europeans are still better than in Muslim countries.
At the beginning of the third millennium, European Muslims became an active political force. In the spring and summer of 2001, mass rallies were held by British Muslims in the factory cities of central England. In 2002, during the parliamentary elections in France, mass demonstrations of French Muslims greatly paralyzed the activity of right-wing Populist National Front. European Muslims in many respects contributed to the development by Europe of an independent position on the issue of the war in Iraq in 2003. In the winter of 2003/2004. large-scale actions of European Muslims were held, which were directed against the ban by the French Ministry of Education on wearing the hijab in schools. In European cities, mass marches are constantly taking place in support of the Palestinian people, against the policies of the United States and Israel.
Some Islamic leaders demanded autonomy for European Muslims. Thus, the director of the Muslim Institute Kaleem Siddiqi (one of the leaders of Islamic radicals in the UK) in his “Muslim manifesto” demanded that British Muslims be given the status of an “autonomous community”.
Europe has become an arena for the activities of Islamic terrorists who organized the bombings in Madrid and London, as well as the murder of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. At the same time, terrorism is generated not only by internal causes, but also by the processes that occur within the Muslim communities of Europe. Many Muslims who participated in the terrorist attack on the USA on September 11, 2001, were Muslims from European countries. Their worldview was shaped in Europe, where favorable conditions were established for the dissemination of the ideas of radical Islam, which rejects liberal and democratic values.
The majority of those who committed the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid were also young Muslims belonging to the second or third generation of immigrants. They were not associated with foreign terrorist organizations, although they claimed to be al Qaeda followers. The group included residents of Madrid and full-fledged citizens of Spain (mostly of Moroccan origin), who were inspired by the ideas of jihad, influenced by the information they gathered on the Internet on radical Islamic websites. The same picture was observed in the UK, where the London attacks of July 7, 2005 were also carried out by young Muslims – full-fledged British citizens.
Islam has become a major factor in European public life. Without taking this factor into account, no serious forecast of the future development of Europe, or of the entire modern world, is possible. A significant part of the Muslims of Europe did not integrate into European reality and consciously refuses to accept the Western European way of life, morality and values. Refusing European identity, they make a choice in favor of “pure” Islam in its Arabian variety and feel themselves primarily as part of the global Muslim community.
The current demographic situation strengthens Muslims in the belief that sooner or later Western Europe will become part of the Islamic world. Among them there is the conviction that the womb of a Muslim woman has become the most effective means of Islamizing Europe and the whole world. Some analysts claim that in the very near future, France will become the first Islamic country in Western Europe, from which Islam will begin its triumphal march through the rest of the continent.
European states have achieved great and unconditional success in defending the democratic rights and freedoms of their citizens. This fully applies to the rights of minorities living in them: religious, ethnic, sexual. The result of this liberal policy was the growing ethno-confessional fragmentation of Europe. But after all, such ethno-confessional fragmentation has always been one of the main features of developing countries. In most of them, such a mosaic caused a heightened conflict in society. The internal political instability caused by it still remains the most important cause of socio-economic stagnation, even social degradation, which are observed in many developing countries.
An increasing number of Muslims prefer to live within their own community, solely by their own laws, and not even speak the languages ​​of their countries of residence. It is precisely this behavior of Muslims that is fundamentally different from the behavior of other minorities (Chinese, Indian, Eastern European, etc.), who, while preserving their cultural traditions and identity, still strive to adapt and integrate into the society where they now live.
Obviously, the more numerous the Islamic segments that are not integrated into the local society, the higher the potential for conflict of the society and the more favorable the ground appears for the activities of radical Islamist groups.
It must be emphasized that Islam, like any other religion, does not in itself pose a threat to the world and society. The threat arises only when Islam ceases to be a religion and begins to be used as a political ideology that is designed to seize power in individual countries, regions or on a planetary scale by the name of creating the future World Caliphate.
In the conditions of the development of a special policy towards Muslims built on the liberal values ​​of European society, their very isolation from the number of other minorities seems to be an absolutely unacceptable violation of democracy. The persistent desire to ignore the specifics of Muslim problems led to the fact that such extremists as Egyptian Abu Hamza, without any problems, received British citizenship and for many years lived quietly in the UK, engaging in terrorist activities.
For European liberalism, it would be unthinkable to enact legislation similar to, for example, the recently adopted Australian decree on Arab-Muslim immigrants, from which “the government feels threatened by terrorist attacks.” This decree states that “Muslims who want to live in Australia under Sharia law will have to leave this country.” In Europe, the statements that Islam is a threat to society entail accusations of racism and prosecution.
Catholic priest pere Samuel, popular in Belgium, the rector of the church of St. Anthony of Padua in Charleroi, was accused by the authorities of racism for pointing out the threat of Islamic expansion in Europe in his sermon. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim,” said this priest, who was born in the family of Syrian Christians in Turkish Kurdistan. In his speech on local television, he called every Muslim child born in Europe “a time bomb for children of European culture who will soon become a minority here.”
It is noteworthy that the initiators of the prosecution of pere Samuel were not Islamic organizations, but the Belgian government human rights organization Center for Equal Opportunities and Resistance to Racism, which qualified his statements as “incitement to racial hatred” and even recommended that Father Samuel be detained until a court verdict was rendered.
Will the growth of the Muslim population lead to the Islamization of Europe? Many radical Islamic leaders no longer doubt this. As one of them said after the death of Pope John Paul II, “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and winner after he was twice expelled from the continent.” After that, “only one choice will be presented to Christians – to accept Islam or pay jizya (i.e., a tax levied on non-Muslims for the right to reside in an Islamic country).
European politicians may continue to pretend that Muslims are no different from other minorities. But further mechanical following along the path of liberalism cannot solve the problem, the existence of which is obvious. It leads only to the further isolation of local Muslims, the growth of the influence of radical political Islam in their midst, which may soon become a real threat to domestic political stability and the very existence of modern European civilization. And the longer the local authorities turn a blind eye to the Islamic problem, the more difficult it will be to find adequate methods for the solution.
The future prospects of Europe will primarily depend on whether European states are able to develop an adequate policy in relation to the growing and less and less integrated society of Muslim communities. Such a policy should not only guarantee all rights, preserve the religious and cultural identity of European Muslims, but also harmonize their relations with society and ensure the integration of Muslims into modern European civilization.
If a still prosperous Europe does not find an adequate way out of this difficult situation, then its development can be reversed and take the path of degradation. In this case, it is not at all the current developing countries that will catch up with the developed ones, but, on the contrary, Europe will be at the level of developing states. At present, such a development is still not fatally inevitable, and one would like to hope that Europe (like all humanity) will not be discarded during the darkest Middle Ages and religious wars.


Breaking News: DOJ AG Barr 

Has The Democrats In a Rage!!



‘And they got caught. And what they did was treason,’ says president

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Trump responded to Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the Obama administration spied on his 2016 presidential campaign, claiming that it was part of an “attempted coup.”
“This was an attempted coup. This was an attempted takedown of a President and we beat them. We beat them,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Wednesday. “So the Mueller report, when they talk about obstruction, we fight back.”
“You know why we fight back? Because I knew how illegal this whole thing was – it was a scam. And what I’m most interested in is getting started – hopefully the Attorney General, he mentioned it yesterday, he’s doing a great job – getting started on going back to the origins of exactly where this all started.”
“Because this was an illegal witch hunt, and everybody knew it, and they knew it too. And they got caught. And what they did was treason,” Trump added.
Barr confirmed during a congressional hearing Wednesday that the Obama administration “conducted unauthorized surveillance” against Trump’s campaign leading up to the 2016 election, and that he assembled a team to investigate all the aspects of the FBI’s counterintelligence operation against Trump and Mueller’s Russia probe.
“I think spying did occur,” Barr said. “But the question is whether it was adequately predicated and I am not suggesting that it wasn’t adequately predicated…I am not suggesting those rules were violated, but I think it is important to look at that. And I am not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.”
AG Barr Confirms: Obama Admin Did Conduct 'Unauthorized Surveillance' of Trump Campaign


‘I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal – it’s a big deal,’ he says
Former President Obama’s administration did in fact spy on the Trump campaign according to testimony from Attorney General William Bar before Congress.
Owen Shroyer breaks down this “shocking” news to the Democrats.
Alex Jones discusses Devin Nunes presenting eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department in what will lead to Deep State indictments.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In typical leftist fashion, Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) attempted to ambush conservative activist Candace Owens (shown) during a congressional hearing on Tuesday, playing selected audio of part of some recent remarks by Owens. Lieu’s ploy was intended to leave the false impression that Owens was defending Adolf Hitler.
Owens did not sit idly by and let Lieu’s unjustified accusation go unanswered, responding, “I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Lieu believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety.” Owens is a noted black conservative who has compared the slavish devotion of most African-Americans to the Democratic Party to “the Democratic plantation.”
The House Judiciary Committee hearing was ostensibly about online hate speech, concentrating on “white nationalism,” “white supremacy,” and racism. During the hearing Lieu shared the clip, in which Owens responded to a question at a conservative event in London on December 11. Lieu then asked Eileen Hershenov, the senior vice-president for policy at the Anti-Defamation League (an organization that focuses on allegations of anti-Semitism), if Owens’ effort to “legitimize” Hitler, history’s most notorious anti-Semite, fed into “white nationalist ideology.”
Lieu launched a vicious personal attack against Owens, attempting to leave the impression that she supported the “nationalism” of Hitler, because Owens had been invited by the Republican minority to be one of its eight witnesses during the hearing.
While Democrats posture themselves as champions of minorities like blacks, Democrat attacks on blacks are nothing new. The truth is that Democrats are prepared to unleash vitriolic attacks on any black person who dares to deviate from the strict liberal line — witness the treatment of notable black political figures such as Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson.
It is an obvious political tactic of the Left to tar the desire to maintain American national sovereignty as “nationalism,” then add adjectives such as “white” to that word, and implying that any person who describes himself as a “nationalist” (as opposed to a “globalist”) like President Donald Trump, is just like Hitler, who was supposedly another “nationalist.”
In fact, the idea that nationalism is bad was the basis of the question that Owens was asked in London late last year — that the growing movement toward nationalism and away from globalism was somehow something to be concerned about.
Owens responded, “I think that the definition [of nationalism] gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism. Globalism is what I don’t want. Whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine.”
“The problem is that he wanted — he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German. Everybody to look a different way. That’s not, to me, that’s not nationalism.” She concluded that she really did not have an issue with nationalism, as she defined it.
Clearly, only a person who is desirous of wanting to smear Owens can read her remarks and conclude that she supported what Hitler did inside of Germany. She explicitly said that if Hitler “just wanted to make Germany great,” she was OK with that. Of course, as history records, Hitler wanted to do more than that — he wanted to have a totalitarian dictatorship inside of Germany. As Owens later added, Hitler was “a homicidal, psychotic maniac,” and that there was “no excuse or defense ever for … everything that he did.”
After Lieu’s attempt to leave the impression that Owens would have been fine with Hitler had he just not invaded other nations like Poland, Owens was visibly angry. “I think it’s pretty apparent that Mr. Liue believes that black people are stupid and will not pursue the full clip in its entirety.… He is assuming that black people will not go and pursue the full two-hour clip. He purposefully cut off — and you didn’t hear the question that was asked of me. He’s trying to present as if I was launching a defense of Hitler in Germany, when in fact the question that was presented to me was pertaining to whether I believed in nationalism, and that nationalism was bad.”
Owens continued, “And what I responded is that I do not believe we should be characterizing Hitler as a nationalist.… A nationalist would not kill their own people.… That was unbelievably dishonest, and he did not allow me to respond to it.”
But Owens was not finished in her blistering response to Lieu. She addressed the insinuation that she was pro-Hitler. “By the way, I would to also add that I work for Prager University, which is run by an Orthodox Jew. Not a single Democrat showed up to the embassy opening in Jerusalem. I sat on a plane for 18 hours to make sure I was there. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of revealing that clip without the question that was asked of me.”
The response of Owens is a textbook example of how conservatives should challenge the dishonesty of the Left. The manner in which Hitler is usually characterized as some kind of a “right-winger” should also be challenged. His political party is almost always called the “Nazi” Party. That is like calling the Communist Party the “Commie” Party — Nazi is just a shorthand for National Socialist. In other words, Hitler and his henchmen were not right-wingers, but rather socialists, men of the Left.
The hearing had little to do with protecting minorities from “hate crimes,” and more to do with partisan politics, as Owens put it well, noting that words such as white supremacy and white nationalism are little more than “election strategies.… The hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes — its about fear-mongering, power, and control,” adding, “The goal here is to scare blacks, Hispanics, gays, and Muslims into helping [Democrats] censor dissenting opinions, ultimately into helping them regain control.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
How is he not the front runner?
Forget Cuban-Medicine-for-All, banning cows and planes, and universal free speech bans for all. This is a truly big idea.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, who always looks like he came to MSNBC directly from a Hitler Youth rally, is running in 2020. Him and everybody else.
On Colbert, Rep. Eric Swalwell announced that he was running for president to an audience of people wondering who he was. He promised to go big, but he didn't roll out his signature policy which would have gone over big with the smirking prep school host and his audience.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.
After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend.”
“The government has nukes.Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman tweeted. “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”
Mr. Swalwell quickly added that “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that,” but by then it was too late.
At least not until he's in the White House.
I can't wait until the media starts urging 2020 candidates to take a stand on whether they're ready to nuke Republicans or will settle for rounding them up into gulags via Dick's and Amazon warehouses.

Swalwell Swagger: California Dem Running on Gun Control Platform