German Politician Tells the Truth About Afghanistan and its People

Click on picture to go to link:
https://3speak.tv/watch?v=rairfoundation/kkiykrml 

German parliamentarian, Sven Tritschler, from the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)  stood before the German Parliament and told the Truth.  Kudos go to RAIR Foundation for this translation:

Madam President, Ladies and gentleman the Green party could not have made it clearer, than with this motion as to what Germany will be facing following the upcoming national elections. They want to open the door wide to anyone who attracted to our country, and are currently using the situation in Afghanistan as the hook. The Green Party creates the impression that we owe this country something. Why? We didn’t install the Taliban. They came to power there before our presence in Afghanistan decades ago. Since 2001, the German taxpayer has dumped at least 20 billion Euros into the Hindu kush. But not only that, several dozen German soldiers have lost their live there! The youngest being just 21 years old. Honestly, I think it is sad that none of the previous speakers mentioned a word about that, ladies and gentlemen. Others came home mentally and physically crippled. Believe me, I’m familiar with what such a mission can do to a young person. I myself took part in such a mission, even if it was comparably harmless in Bosnia. But it doesn’t end there. We gave the Afghan government an army. We trained it and equipped it. Nominally, the force was far superior to the Taliban. What did the soldiers do at the slightest sign of danger? They ran away, or they defected. No ladies and gentlemen, our country owes Afghanistan nothing. Actually, it is the other way around. Afghanistan is right back where it was, before our soldiers came. That’s exactly where an overwhelming majority of the population obviously wants to be. According to a recent survey, 99% of Afghans support shariah law. 85% want stoning for unfaithful wives. 79% are in favor of killing apostates. The attitude towards Jews and homosexuals is obvious there. Ladies and gentlemen this is what they want to bring to our country by the hundreds of thousands. We the AfD are the only party that says: “No thank you!” ladies and gentlemen.

We could help these people better in their neighboring countries where they fit in better culturally, but not in Germany.  Something very significant among the people we have flown out, is that less than 20% were even so-called local staff. Among them were twenty criminals, including a child molester, but oh well,, he’s here now, ladies and gentlemen, and he will soon be loose again. Thank you, CDU. Thank you dear SPD. It is well-known that we cannot integrate these people en masse into our society. They form parallel societies. They originate from an archaic tribal society, and they do not belong here. So before any outrage explodes here: NO this has nothing to do with race. Allow me to quote Helmut Schmidt, someone who led the SPD before 25% was considered a success. 

Immigration from Afghanistan brings with it considerable problems. It is a different civilization. Not due to their different genes, not because of their different ancestry, but because of the way they were raised as infants, the way they were raised as toddlers, the way they were raised as school children, the way they were raised as children within families.

End of quote. And we don’t need these people either. They aren’t skilled workers. At least not for what is needed in Germany. The so-called “shortage of skilled workers” is a fairy tale told by migration lobbyists and business associations who want to decrease wage levels in Germany. Do you know what the “skilled worker shortage” used to be called? It was called full-time employment, and that’s a good thing, especially for employees, ladies and gentlemen. They can’t negotiate any better. So what are the so-called “middle class” doing in this situation? As we’ve just heard, they’re being a bit coy. After all, there’s an election campaign. They’re ducking out of the way, and of course they’re against these demands from the Green Party. But how credible is that really? In Cologne, one of the cities with the most expensive rents in Germany, the CDU, the FDP, the Left party, the Greens, and the SPD have just united in calling for more migration from Afghanistan, using the nice argument that “we have room.” 

Gerhard Papke, who until recently was the vice-president for the FDP here in the state parliament, and for years its parliamentary group leader, tweeted yesterday and I quote: “After 16 years of Merkel, the Union and FDP, have apparently completely capitulated to the agenda of the political left. Even with its back to the wall, the CDU avoids the issue of migration like the devil resists holy water, even though immigration from Afghanistan mercilessly exposes the problems.” End Quote.

Dear CDU, Dear FDP, 

You have something in common with the Afghan army. You surrender without fighting. Obviously you’re not really convinced by your own words. Fortunately, you no longer have a monopoly. Citizens can now vote for us, the AfD. We’ll promise you one thing. There will be no new 2015 [reference to mass migration of Muslims to Germany] with us. Even after the federal election. We therefore reject the motion. – Thank you very much.

Please support my work by giving to my patreon account.

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=13022797 

Please support my work by giving through PayPal or by sending a check to Paul Sutliff, PO Box 12846, 4455 Lake Avenue, Rochester, NY 14612.

Judge Watson's TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!

As I read the Order Granting the Temporary Retraining Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., I began to wonder how this document was written with any assemblance of juris prudence professionalism. I say this knowing it is practically impossible for a judge to write a 42 page document excluding the title page which makes 43 in a matter of two hours. I took an extra step to verify this by talking to lawyers who had seen judges using their clerks assistance to complete maybe 12 pages in two hours due to needed discussion and citation verification not to mention proof reading.

I suggest every American read this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision pre-written prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of unethical conduct of a judge.

The State of Hawaii presented a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries be banned. Among the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism declined by 100 persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there was an increase or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to last year.

Yet, even Judge Derrick Watson  admits in a FOOTNOTE:

Footnote 8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order No. 13,769. At this preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s effect on tourism in     order to gauge the economic impact of the new Executive Order, while understanding that the provisions of the two differ. Because the new Executive Order has yet to take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be determined." (pgs. 20-21)

The State of Hawaii made the outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’I would suffer economical hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six countries currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat humorously, the state claimed:

… that any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.

Oh, the insanity! The college can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United States is a hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better yet, are these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable them to attend the University of Hawai'i?

The State of Hawaii went on and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of the Persian Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in deleting a program that requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled from their site listing their academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!

Dr. Ismail Elshikh is listed as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly purposefully because his name is listed in news articles as "Ismail El Sheikh." While it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations of English for their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in America for sometime to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and to understand the meaning behind the misspelling.

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh claims that his children are suffering hardship because his mother-in-law is not able to come to America, though it was established that she is in a the process of being able to come due to family being here.

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh is quoted in the TRO as having stated:

•  … that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.
•  “deeply saddened by the message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’ to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1
•  “Because of my allegiance to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.”; id. ¶ 3
• [“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”

I am further at a loss when I read on page 23-24:

Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007)  (“The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause     context.”). “The standing question, in plain English, is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1048–49. 

The TRO was awarded with the claim that it violates Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment rights! Yet his rights have never been in violation! At no time, and in no place in the TRO does it state that his rights were in question!! Rather the statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment rights are being violated!!!

The bill makes no illusions to religion at all. Even though they do quote an adviser to the president they do not provide proof that there is a ban on a religion. Which of course can be easily disproved by naming off Muslim countries that have no ban!

On Page 27 the ruling states:

(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not based on speculation about a particular future prosecution or the defeat of a particular ballot question. . . . Here, the issue   presented requires no further factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly protected First Amendment expression.”); see also     Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened enforcement effort implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.

The mentioning of freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is this evidence that Judge Derrick Watson  could not find judicial reasoning to support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?

The TRO decision states:

“Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment 31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not. (p. 30-31)

Interestingly, this statement quotes the last judge who ruled against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions but tries to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:

the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.

Worse still is the lack in understanding that the are using math to justify their reasoning while stating that math should not be used for this purpose. This also demonstrates that the judgement was given prejudicially be not applying statistical analysis in math to examine why those six countries were deemed to be terrorist supporter countries. This provides a one sided view. Something judges are not supposed to do.

CONCLUSION:

This TRO’s standing is based on a belief that people who are not American citizens are under the US Constitution! This is highly misleading, unethical and teem of nothing but judicial activism!

Where is the outrage? Why are the major media outlets not asking these questions? Because it would not fit their narrative? If  Judge Derrick Watson  is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick Watson to be impeached today! The evidence is all in the TRO.

HELP FUND A NEW CIVILIZATION JIHAD AWARENESS WEB SITE!

https://www.gofundme.com/civilization-jihad-awareness-site

Books

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam $17.00 USD  Stealth Jihad Phase 2: Infiltrate American Colleges $7.00 USD

 

OBFUSCATION ALERT: The Major Media News Outlets and Islamic Migrants

Of late the major media news outlets have done a series of articles on the migrants being displaced from the “Jungle” camp also known as Calais refugee camp. What is interesting is that the “professional reporters” only convey the story from the refugees’ point of view.  

The Associated Press published an article by Alex Turnbull on Oct. 31, 2016 entitled: “Police operation creates tension in Paris migrant camp” he quotes one refugee and one charity worker: 

"Every day, I see on TV, on the internet, on Facebook that here there are human rights. Where are the human rights? I'm not seeing any human rights here," said Mirzai. 

Charity worker Houssam El Assimi, of local aid group La Chappelle Debout, held a sign reading "No to police raids against migrants." He said Monday's operation was the 27th in the area in which police sort people based on whether they have papers and the right to seek asylum. 

Turnbull ends his article with a quote from police on how many migrants they have turned out from camps. But his article is missing several key things. Comments from locals and how they felt about the refugee camp. A simple survey on locals and if the refugee camp made them feel less safe would have fit perfectly. What about a report from police on if any crimes were related to the local migrant camp? This also would have been an obvious fit. 

But the simple reason is that the French government and the media have an agreement not to portray anything negative about the refugees or to ever allow a portrayal of what they have in common, they are largely Muslims in love with Sharia…Islamists. There is one more additional element. The vast majority of migrants in France are men of military age without families! I was in France a month ago and witnessed a makeshift soup kitchen in action at a refugee camp in Paris where tents and mattresses and trash seemed in abundance. Below is a brief video of this.  

I had the privilege of meeting with people in the Interior Ministry, where I met one of the leaders of the General Directorate for Aliens in France. This is why I also noticed something else not stated in the Turnbull article. The article states:  

Regional authorities say they have cleared out more than 19,000 migrants from Paris since June 2015. 

What it does not say is of these 19,000 “x” amount were deported. Were any of these people deported? The answer sadly is none. When I met with the head of Immigration to France in the Interior Ministry, he revealed something every French citizen needs to know and likely does not. That the French government may not be able to deport a migrant who does not comply with what the government of France requires. So a migrant can be “eternally on the dole.” 

             But Associated Press is not alone in its purposeful obfuscation of “migrant” issues. CNN is a partner a crime.  CNN ran an article on Thursday, October 27th entitled, Calais 'Jungle': Unregistered children left in limbo by Laura Smith-Spark, Saskya Vandoorne and Bryony Jones. Interestingly this article also neglects important points in favor of making the government the bad guy and the migrants good guys. First off since this is an American source it calls the migrants “refugees.” This is a contradiction to what the government of France calls them. Why the change in title? It is simply a ploy to gather sympathy for their plight. These people are not running from persecution, which would make them refugees. They are not fleeing war. Although you may think so from reading the articles. The majority of these men are North African. But you would not know that from reading this article.  

               Bell said there had been no violence as yet between police and migrants, but anxiety was growing among the unaccompanied teenagers, many of them from Afghanistan, about what might happen. 

Really Bell? Do you have any stats to prove that? The Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) did a study which was published in May of this year and determined the following: 

• Of the 6,000 migrants estimated to be living in the Jungle and Jules Ferry Centre, the largest group were found to be from Sudan, at around a third, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Pakistan. 
• 95 per cent of respondents were men and the mean age was 25, with half of those questioned having completed secondary or further education. 
• 25% of those in Calais reporting having experienced violence experienced it in the “Calais jungle”, where sexual abuse and exploitation has been reported alongside police brutality. 
•  61 per cent of asylum seekers were also found to have health problems, mostly developing since their arrival in the Jungle. 

This study did not reveal if it questioned a person’s claims about their country of origin. However, since migrants have been found to be lying about their age. This should have been verified before accepting the countries of origin are counted as valid. 

Also what about those kids taken to the UK on the premise that  2/3rds of the unaccompanied minors screened were found to be lying about their age. The UK Telegraph exposed this as a lie on October 18th! So Why do the CNN personnel not report on this? Claiming to be a minor and not being one should merit an immediate deportation. Simply because it places other minors at risk. So were the people left in Calais actually teens or were they adults? 

Then the one true uniting factor for the vast majority of the migrants is simply missing. Not one major media news source says what it is. Why is that? Are they forbidden from using the terms “Muslim” or “Islamic” as an accurate descriptive word? In Europ  e they use the word “Asian” whenever they mean Muslim in the news media. 

Historically, in areas taken over by Islamic governments, those who refused to convert and were allowed to live were called Dhimmis had to pay a tax, the jizya, and they were forbidden from using Arabic. Are the major media news outlets now Dhimmis? You be the judge! 

If you like my work, please click on the book and make a purchase in order to help me to continue to bring you the truth!