Importing Jihad Refugee Resettlement: The quiet Jihad tsunami
The FBI admits that they cannot properly screen the Syrians, while the US State Department is telling the media that 10,000 Syrians will be here soon. Syria, home of the Islamic State.
Al hijrah, jihad by immigration.
And while the genocide of Christians is ongoing in Syria, over 90% of the Syrians who are being brought to America are Muslims. It’s a catastrophe. The top five states targeted for Syrian Muslim resettlement are California, Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Meanwhile, dozens of American jihadis who fought in the war in Iraq and Syria have returned to the United States, equipped with the training they used fighting either for or against ISIS, according to one federal official.
Maybe the State Department can reunite these two very similar Muslim groups.
“First Syrians arrive in North Texas,” by Ann Corcoran, RRW, on April 11, 2015
If you haven’t already, you will be seeing more warm and fuzzy stories like this one in your states as the Syrian refugees begin to arrive. We have taken in 682 so far. See my post of last Saturday and see which states they went to.
As the FBI says they cannot properly screen Syrians, the US State Department seems to be still telling the media that 10,000 will be here soon.
The contractors want 65,000 by the end of 2016!
From WFAA (Dallas) which implies only a handful have arrived in Texas, however, Texas has received at least 86 so far and as the top resettlement state in the nation, it will receive the most Syrians.
Doing well by doing good: Heather Reynolds is CEO of Catholic Charities Ft. Worth and is one of the leaders resettling Middle Easterners to Dallas/Ft. Worth. In her mid-30’s, Ms. Reynolds pulls down a cool $199,324 in salary and related income. In a recent form 990 we learned that this Catholic Charities office took in almost $17 million in revenue and $9 million came from you through government grants.
No surprise that the refugee industry puts its most appealing refugees (like these cute girls) out for PR campaigns. The mainstream media eats it up!
Eight Syrian refugee families call North Texas home right now — four in Dallas and four in Fort Worth. But Basatneh [Syrian American Council] said more are on their way after the U.S. State Department agreed to accept as many as 10,000.
Watch the clip where we are told that “it is our duty” to take them in and that 1,000 will be coming to Texas within the year? Say what!
We are told the flow will be on par with the Iraqi flow which stands at 20,000 per year right now.
And, note the lovely apartment the family has received, I bet there are some needy Americans in Dallas/Ft. Worth who would love a place like that!
So who is doing the seeding of refugees in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area?
Four of the nine major contractors have divided up what must be a large flow to Ft. Worth:
The reason most immigration into America has been from Catholic dominated countries, political power.
This is a joke, right?
America is 20% Catholic, and the percentage has gone up in recent years due to immigration. Historically, European immigrants to America were mostly Protestant.
England is a Protestant country. When the first English colony was founded in America, England was already a Protestant country. America didn't fill up with people fleeing Catholic persecution, it filled up, first, with English Protestants fleeing Protestant persecution.
The Germans who came early were Quakers and Brethren, and they were fleeing Protestant persecution in Northern Germany.
This notion that most immigration into America has been from Catholic- dominated countries is ludicrous.
Catholic immigration came out of Ireland, first. Ireland, a land where the Protestants slaughtered and abused the Catholics for a few hundred years. America was a refuge for Irish Catholics FROM Protestants, never the other way around. The Protestant Irish who came, came because England - a Protestant country - wrecked their textile industry. It wasn't to "flee the Catholics", whom they held firmly in subjection.
20% of the population is Catholic, and that's INCLUDING all the recent Latino immigration. America filled up with Protestants fleeing other Protestants, not Protestants fleeing Catholics.
The English were not fleeing Catholics. The Germans and Dutch were not fleeing Catholics. The Scandinavians were not fleeing Catholics.
Honestly, where do you Protestants come up with these ideas? Who tells you these lies?
England is a Protestant country. When the first English colony was founded in America, England was already a Protestant country. America didn't fill up with people fleeing Catholic persecution, it filled up, first, with English Protestants fleeing Protestant persecution.
If American had been discovered sooner I wouldn't be afraid to say the first people to come here would have been trying to escape Catholic persecution.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Many conservative Catholics I know won't give a red cent to this organization.
I have no doubt at all about that being true. What I question is how anyone that contributes can make sure none of their contributions is used for things like that,or to support "Liberation Theology"?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not all of the Catholic Church is evil and political.
Of course not. I have no doubt the majority of the members are devout and serious about their beliefs,but the thing is they are so loyal to "The Holy Mother Church" that they will continue to support anything and everything the Vatican proposes.
IMHO,the leadership is completely corrupted.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Part of the Psy-Op plan is to give you and other voters a candidate who seems like the greatest thing since Apple Pie Ala Mode.
Think "Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football",and you won't be far off base.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Since I believe this is a front, 'Catholic Charities' most main sources of contributions can be found deeeeply underground.
IMHO,a wholly-owned subsidiary of "Global Government,Inc".
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Catholic Church is a dictatorship, and King maker.
And sometimes a King Executioner.
It has been that way since Day One.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It is actually a republic. They elect their leader.
No,they don't. The Catholic public has no say-so whatsoever. It is a cabal of Cardinals that elect Gawd's Right Hand Man.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
" If this nation was still a godly nation, I would have some confidence in taking back this nation. This nation has turned its back on God, and I believe He has turned His back on this nation "
A Republic? Who gets the vote? I guess it is like an appointed Congress with the power to vote. It is a dictatorship, like the Mafia voting on Capo de Capo.
Of course the early nation was filled with Non-Catholics. People came out looking to escape the dictatorial power of the King(Anglican church) and the Pope(Catholic church). We booted the power of the Anglican church by revolution, then the Catholic church has fought to bring us to heel for years. The goal of the Catholic church is not to bring the Gospel to people, it is to accumulate power and wealth.
" If this nation was still a godly nation, I would have some confidence in taking back this nation. This nation has turned its back on God, and I believe He has turned His back on this nation "
This nation has turned its back on everthing and has become a nation of unruly self obsessed incompetent fifth graders.
No,they don't. The Catholic public has no say-so whatsoever. It is a cabal of Cardinals that elect Gawd's Right Hand Man.
A Republic? Who gets the vote? I guess it is like an appointed Congress with the power to vote. It is a dictatorship, like the Mafia voting on Capo de Capo.
Why do you assume the USA's version of a republic is the only model?
Why do you assume the USA's version of a republic is the only model?
Because it is the modern model we live under,and the one you are always attacking.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It is actually a republic. They elect their leader.
LOL. It's no more of a Government Of, By, and For the People than the facade facilitated by the Oprichni secret police/KGB/FSB in the Orthodox Russian state-establishment.
Same ol' theocratic Ba'al-shyte, different municipal toilet.
What new reality would you like? A fantasy reality really doesn't qualify as a reality, old or new.
Ted Cruz is as close to true "Hope and Change" as there is IMO. I don't believe his Presidency is so much fantasy as destined to be sabotaged by the elites.
One fantasy is this nation's laws and political system still works.
It's broken, no doubt.
To answer your question simply regarding a candidate I would support, No. Are you going to make the standard comment that I should vote for the lesser of the evils simply because not voting is not a valid option?
It's your prerogative to perceive "evil" or the validity of the ballot box any way you need to. But then again, are you really making no distinction between say Hitlery and Cruz? Or 0bola and Cruz (and anyone else?) Are they both "evil," as well as to the same degree?
THIS may well be the last legit election (and I say "may" because IMO 2012's election results were bogus.)
The power is firmly entrenched. When these people take over a nation, they wrap their tentacles around the neck of the nation until resistors either surrender or die. They are too close to achieving their goals to let any "fighter" easily overcome their aims.
I tend to agree with your assessment. For this reason I believe the campaign of Cruz will be sabotaged at all costs.
If this nation was still a godly nation, I would have some confidence in taking back this nation. This nation has turned its back on God, and I believe He has turned His back on this nation.
On this point we also agree. As this nation has continued to turn its back on God, He is doing the same. We are now at the cusp of the "cursed" stage (of which we deserve, frankly.)
This nation has turned its back on everthing and has become a nation of unruly self obsessed incompetent fifth graders.
You've described an epidemic of puerile narcissism. That's what happens when a people and nation instead of worshiping God, turn their back on Him and instead worship...themselves.
Did Greece produce the equivalent of American Founders dedicated to liberty, freedom, and individual rights inherent as "God-given"?
Plato documented various forms of 'republics' - republic is any govt that is based on rules. A tyranny is based on the whims of one man - he is the law and above the law. In a republic - regardless of if there is universal sufferage or not - the appointed or elected or inherited rulers are bound by laws and their powers are limited and deliniated.
That is why the commies could call their system "republics". That is why Venice was a republic. The Founding Fathers were in awe of the Greeks and Romans - America's system is Roman system pre empire. Which means the USA is also prone to having it's Republic one day become a autocracy.
It is actually a republic. They elect their leader.
LOL. It's no more of a Government Of, By, and For the People than the facade facilitated by the Oprichni secret police/KGB/FSB in the Orthodox Russian state-establishment.
A republic does not need to be "a Government Of, By, and For the People" - that is not what republic means.
The Romans always had a knack for mobilizing and manipulating the Mob with bread, circuses, and state-established superstition.
You sound like you think the Romans in charge were not religious men - were not as superstitious as their citizens?
It is now considered more accurate to think that the Romans deeply believed their religion and superstitions. They actually did think the gods would punish Rome if a ritual or sacrifice was not performed, etc.
Also, it was a long established belief that the Romans were tricking the people into submission by providing them with bread and circuses - free food and distractions - but now scholars are of the opinion the Roman senate feared the public and these were bribes to prevent the citizenry from turning on them.
In other words, there was real power that the Roman citizen had and the Roman citizen very much intended to get a benefit from the empire and that they always watched to make sure the senate elite did not steal it all for themselves.
Why do you assume the USA's version of a republic is the only model?
Because it is the modern model we live under,and the one you are always attacking.
The Catholic church as it operates in Rome is at least 1,500 to 2,000 years old so why deny them the use of the term republic when they are more contemporaries of Plato more than the modern versions?
Plato documented various forms of 'republics' - republic is any govt that is based on rules. A tyranny is based on the whims of one man - he is the law and above the law. In a republic - regardless of if there is universal sufferage or not - the appointed or elected or inherited rulers are bound by laws and their powers are limited and deliniated.
That is why the commies could call their system "republics".
"Rules"? You mean like a Bill of Rights and Constitution?
Yes, both are mere squares of Charmin if unenforced or upheld by the appointed authorities.
Simply defined, a "Republic" is a representative government. The citizenry elects it's representatives at a local level, county, state, and so forth. There is no king or queen (as in a monarchy.)
ANY "commies" calling their socialist-slave state a "Republic" is lying (as is their wont.)
"Tyranny" can indeed be based upon the whim of one man OR a mob -- as are Communists, Fascists, or...those who cruelly enslave or limit or unfairly withhold freedom without consent of the governed.
The Founding Fathers were in awe of the Greeks and Romans - America's system is Roman system pre empire. Which means the USA is also prone to having it's Republic one day become a autocracy.
True, the American Founder admired tsome of the political systems and ideals of the Romans and Greeks -- most notably, a Senate of representatives. Only the American Founders built upon and refined their systems of a true representative government. This begot an economic system where the poor could become wealthy based on individual economic freedom as well as personal freedom. Both the Greek and Roman Empires were weighted down and eventually destroyed within through...slavery and diluted nationalism.
In other words, there was real power that the Roman citizen had and the Roman citizen very much intended to get a benefit from the empire and that they always watched to make sure the senate elite did not steal it all for themselves.
One parallel in this case is that *neither* Roman citizens OR Americans (or for that matter ANY of the world's citizenry) are capable of truly monitoring their respective government reps for corruption and administering justice. The elites are immune from the law. How do we know this? The American people are now on the hook for $19 trillion as countless reps get caught with their hands in the cookie jar...and routinely collude with international elites in larceny on an epic scale. WITH impunity. You own country -- socialist Greece -- is dead broke. It now survives on hand-outs from the EU.
Uh, yes it is. HELLO. A "Republic" is by definition a representative government.
It does not state that the "representatives" doing the representing need be elected by the people. The Senate for example was appointed as is the Supreme court. President Ford was never elected into office. You don't need elections by the people to be a republic. The president is elected by a college of cardinals aka electoral college.
The American people are now on the hook for $19 trillion as countless reps get caught with their hands in the cookie jar...and routinely collude with international elites in larceny on an epic scale. WITH impunity. You own country -- socialist Greece -- is dead broke. It now survives on hand- outs from the EU.
If we had socialism we would be on the hook for the same amount but be a cleaner, and well built nation like Scandinavia. But what we got instead was Reagonomics.
It does not state that the "representatives" doing the representing need be elected by the people.
It's implied. Or are we now going to engage in a battle of intent and semantics?
The Senate for example was appointed as is the Supreme court. President Ford was never elected into office. You don't need elections by the people to be a republic. The president is elected by a college of cardinals aka electoral college.
Sure, there are some exceptions to the rule. Ford and a VP is intended as a temporary a contingency plan. To your point, even in the Senate case, House reps were elected by peers to represent their respective constituency. They in turn are entrusted to do the same of Senate reps.
Lifetime appointments for ANY judge is a fundamental flaw in the Founders' system. Especially the for SCOTUS. So too are the lack of term-limits. And with the lack of respect for the intent of the Founders, respect for the law, and respect for honor and integrity, this "Republic" ostensibly is no more.
