Tuesday, November 24, 2020
Monday, November 23, 2020
When is it safe to NOT wholly inspect someone, when you are a prison guard? According to the Mayor of New York City, Bill DeBlasio and the New York City Police, department it’s when the perp is a Muslim woman and has yet to have her mugshot taken. Yes, you heard that right the Mayor of NYC and the NYPD have just given Islam an elevated place as far as those who are arrested and female.
This story is actually much bigger than it seems. For those who keep up on terrorism, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and so much more this story is actually much bigger. Why? Because this is not a court case that was won. It is a case that was settled as part of what Al Qaeda leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri called "The Battle of the Hijab.” After 9/11, an attack initiated by Al Qaeda against the United States of America, which destroyed the World Trade Center, took out part of the Pentagon and led to the deaths of those on Flight 193 who rose up in defiance of the Al Qaeda terrorists who took their plane, when it fell to the ground in Pennsylvania, DeBlasio and the New York Police Department has awarded a win to Al-Qaeda.
What did they win? The “right” for Muslim women not to have their hijab head-scarves removed when they are arrested and posed for mugshots. While a stipulation is given that creates an exception that allows the headscarves to removed for a search for weapons and contraband, the way the policy is communicated leaves a lot of room for the searches of the coverings to be paused until after a mugshot is taken. Namely the hijab-scarf, and the area underneath that covering to now not be implement at all until after a mugshot is taken. UPI wrote about DeBlasio’s politically correct lawyers, portraying this as a win for all by stating, “The agreement applies to not only hijabs, but also other religious head coverings, such as burqa, turban, or wigs worn by Orthodox Jews.”
So only the Muslim does not have to remove head gear and facial coverings? I asked Patrick Dunleavy, a former New York State Deputy Inspector General of the criminal intelligence unit of the department of Corrections what this could mean if it goes beyond and effects searches for weapons and contraband. He pointed me towards the 2012 ruling of the US Supreme Court on the Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, which states:
The question here is whether undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband. Correctional officials have a significant interest in conducting a thorough search as a standard part of the intake process. The admission of new inmates creates risks for staff, the existing detainee population, and the new detainees themselves. Officials therefore must screen for contagious infections and for wounds or injuries requiring immediate medical attention. It may be difficult to identify and treat medical problems until detainees remove their clothes for a visual inspection. Jails and prisons also face potential gang violence, giving them reasonable justification for a visual inspection of detainees for signs of gang affiliation as part of the intake process. Additionally, correctional officials have to detect weapons, drugs, alcohol, and other prohibited items new detainees may possess…”
Dunleavy stated that it is extremely important that law enforcement continues to search religious wear, and shared with me his personal experiences, saying, “In my almost 30 years in law enforcement, I have personally seen numerous incidents where men and women have hidden drugs, weapons, etc... in articles of clothing when entering a detention center. Some have gone so far as to hide contraband in an infants diaper.” I believe Mr. Dunleavy is correct. We can only hope that those who will train officers about this ruling within the NYPD does not mistake this ruling as saying you cannot search for weapons and contraband.
Patrick Dunleavy has been writing on this pollical correctness insanity of giving in and not defending good practices of those in law enforcement as being dangerous. He sees the actions of Mayor DeBlasio and the NYPD as “Capitulation in a time of conflict, <that> is demoralizing to the rank and file charged with protecting the community they serve.” Remember this is not from a case won in the courts. It is a concession and a win that is now being claimed around the world for political Islam.
Friday, November 13, 2020
Germany had an 11 year old Muslim threaten his teacher’s life because of a required talk about the death of Samuel Paty in France. An Imam was called who spoke to the child, likely in Arabic saying one thing while saying another in German claiming that “nobody should be killed.” This wording likely comes from a passage in Quran 5:32:
Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.
Note that the passage refers to Jews taking a life being wrong, not to Muslims.
This week Germany also had, an Imam seen dragging a man wearing a leash with a picture of France’s president, Emannuel Macron covering his face. “Syrian YouTuber Fayez Kanfash dragged by rope "Macron, the dog" – a man wearing a mask of French President Emmanuel Macron through the streets of Berlin. While burning pictures of Macron, Kanfash hit the man and shouted at him that he is a lowlife and a dog.” This open display of a belief in Islamic supremacy over all other governments and beliefs was encouraged by Muslims heard in the background saying Allah Akbar. But it was barely noticed by the Germans now accustomed to such displays.
But perhaps the most caustic alarm about the hijrah/migration of Syrians was in the German Berliner Kourier that reported a Syrian man who lamented on missing being a jihadi. He wants to go back and be a jihadi again. Of course that led to his immediate arrest.
Five years ago I wrote an article titled, “When is a Refugee not a Refugee?” When I wrote this article a massive Hijrah was underway to take Europe by storm with the deception that these migrants were fleeing persecution. This deceptive claim made it to North America. Here we were calling them “refugees.” Europe knew better. There they were calling these travellers “economic migrants.” The Independent, a United Kingdom news source, titled a article on this topic “Refugee crisis: 'Economic migrants' and asylum seekers are coming to Europe for the same reasons, report says.” In 2015, political correctness demanded a blending of terminology that would serve as a deception to Europeans and Western civilization as a whole. Refugees, asylum seekers and, economic migrants, are by definition two separate groups as the have two different reasons behind their moving from their native lands. Asylum seekers are very much like refugees, however there is one big difference. Asylum seekers are already in country.
In the United States of America a refugee is currently defined by 8 USC §1101 (42):
The term "refugee" means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or
(B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
If you are paying attention to the highlighted material above you can see a requirement of fear of persecution is required to meet the status of a refugee. This is extremely important considering the United Nations definition of refugee was in agreement with US law when I wrote my article on November 19, 2015.
The link above to the legal definition on refugees also cites, President George H.W. Bush explained in a memorandum dated February 7, 1995 (60 F.R. 7885):
It is a fundamental right and duty for a nation to protect the integrity of its borders and its laws. This Administration shall stand firm against illegal immigration and the continued abuse of our immigration laws. By closing the back door to illegal immigration, we will continue to open the front door to legal immigrants.
My Administration has moved swiftly to reverse the course of a decade of failed immigration policies. Our initiatives have included increasing overall Border personnel by over 50 percent since 1993. We also are strengthening worksite enforcement and work authorization verification to deter employment of illegal aliens. Asylum rules have been reformed to end abuse by those falsely claiming asylum, while offering protection to those in genuine fear of persecution. …
Seeking a better economic status is not by any stretch of the imagination an equivalent of someone fearing persecution! In 2015, I wrote specifically about the Syrians migrating. Not any other nationality. Here is a portion of the article.
Today, it is of special importance to notice read this definition! Basically, the 1980 definition of a refugee is a) any person who is outside any country and b) who is unable or unwilling to return, c) because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.
Do the Syrians slated to be received by America meet this definition? Do they meet the three conditions?
1) Yes, these persons are outside of the country.
2) Are Syrians unable or unwilling to return ? This is up to the individual. Many have gone back and forth.
3) Persons slated to come to America as “refugees” are Muslim. Are Syrian Muslims facing persecution or do they have a well-founded fear of persecution? The Islamic State is targeting and persecuting :
a. Religions other Muslim: mostly Christians and Jews
b. Shi’ite Muslims
f. Muslims against sharia
Those persons who are coming from areas threatened by or currently under control of the Islamic State have no reason to fear persecution IF they do not meet any of the 6 conditions listed above, the Islamic State would not persecute or cause fear of persecution.
Most of those slated to be received by America as “refugees” do not qualify as refugees under the 1980 definition, simply because they have no reason to fear persecution as they are Sunni Muslims. Why then are these persons being classified as refugees?
It is now 2020, the UN now defines a refugee more broadly to include those fleeing conflict. This makes taking any refugee classified as such by the UN a violation of US law unless they are individually assessed to be threatened with having a legitimate fear of persecution. Pursuing a “better economic status” is not fearing being bodily harmed or persecuted!
From 2013 to 2015, a “Syrian crisis” had evolved because of an Al Qaeda formed entity that morphed into ISIS and later became the Islamic State. It was a threat to non-Muslims as stated above. BUT, the majority of those who fled to Europe were NOT SYRIANS! They were Sunni Muslims from Algeria, from all over. A large percentage of them came from Northern Africa. I personally witnessed this when I was in Europe in 2017. Another fact about this “economic migration” is that it was suspect as not being a real “refugee crisis” because the majority of those migrating were simply were men between the ages of 18 and 40. What many call military age. There were almost no women and almost no children.
Some of these men later sent for their wives. Some had more than one wife and some had more than 5 children. The Daily Mail documented one “Syrian” migrant who made it to the UK and was receiving £320,000 in benefits every year to provide for his FOUR WIVES and 23 KIDS in 2016. According to the Daily Mail, the man moved to Germany after being told by the government, they would only pay for one wife and her children.
At the time of this “crisis” the Islamic State had issued a statement claiming they were inserting their fighters into Europe through what they considered foolish acceptance of anyone claiming to be from Syria.
In 2013, Sweden started to grant citizenship to anyone making the claim they were from Syria. No questions asked!
Since this “crisis” happened, an endless stream of Muslim migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia has throttled Europe, chocking it financially bringing each its countries into what seems unmeasured debt.
There never seems a day now, when there is not a news story that does not include a Muslim migrant crime or some act of terrorism expressing their love of Shariah above the laws of Western civilization.
When will Europe begin to protect its own? When will its natives and their culture be important? Or will they simply cease to exist swallowed up under the rule of Islam taken by invasion of an enemy they refused to understand.
Paul Sutliff is a federally recognized expert on Civilization Jihad in the United States. His blog can be found at http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com. You can request him as a speaker at http://paulsutliff.com. Paul’s books are on Amazon.
To support Paul please give here: https://www.givesendgo.com/GX8Q