Immigration

Jesse Lee Peterson: Only 'Traitors' Like Obama Disagree With Trump On Muslim Immigration

Conservative activist Jesse Lee Peterson is coming to the defense of Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the country, writing in WorldNetDaily over the weekend that only “traitors” like President Obama disagree with Trump’s plan.

Peterson laments that just seven years after the 9/11 attacks, Americans elected “a man with a Muslim name and sympathies” who “sides with the enemy.”

“Knowing the administration’s desire to overrun us with Muslims, Trump’s position makes a whole lot of sense,” he writes … unless, of course, you’re a traitor.

For many American citizens, the murder of nearly 3,000 of our own on 9/11 by Muslim fanatics was a wake-up call. The naïve way many of us had viewed the world melted under shattering reality in the space of one chilling morning.

Unfortunately, after the immediate shock passed, most went back to sleep and stayed asleep. Just seven years later, a man with a Muslim name and sympathies, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected president, and four years later, was re-elected. Now after Paris and San Bernardino, it couldn’t be clearer that he sides with the enemy. God help us.

Paris and San Bernardino brought some of the post-9-11 reality back to us – that Muslims represent a clear and present danger. It was another wake-up call for some, and for others, another opportunity to deny their country’s need for self-preservation by siding with the enemy.

The deniers are cowards – and traitors.

After San Bernardino, Americans rejected Barack Hussein Obama’s call for gun control and massive Muslim immigration. The people instead clamored for Muslim control.

In this environment, one man, Donald Trump, dared to voice what was on the minds of millions of Americans, and called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S., until we can get a grip on our nation’s security. Knowing the administration’s desire to overrun us with Muslims, Trump’s position makes a whole lot of sense.

Unless you’re a Quran-believing Muslim, liberal or RINO Republican.

This all points to the insanity of today’s world, where Muslim savages follow a seventh-century madman who grew up without his father, and waged bloody jihad against Jews, Christians and other “infidels.” And yet, almost all of our leaders – instead of standing against the atrocities committed by members of the “religion of peace” – are actually supporting their reign of terror by doing nothing to stop it. Worse, they’re actively working against the few who – like Donald Trump – are standing up for the American people.

They are cowards, and they are traitors.

Ann Coulter Hopes President Trump Suspends All Immigration

Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit who has taken credit for shaping Donald Trump’s immigration policy, spoke with Breitbart News on Saturday, where she said that Trump’s “genius” plan to ban Muslim immigration should lead to a sweeping suspension of all immigration.

Coulter said that the ban on Muslims from entering the country should lead to a halt on non-Muslims immigrants as well, likening it to Obamacare, which she insisted was designed as a “two-step” plan that was designed to fail and then usher in a single-payer health care system.

“Trump’s immigration policy paper, the greatest political document since the Magna Carta, proposes a moratorium on all immigration,” she said. “It’s completely out of control. It isn’t just the Muslim terrorists we’re letting in, though that is stupid enough. Far more Americans are killed by Mexicans than by Muslim terrorists, Muslim terrorists do it in a more spectacular way.”

She added: “Why not just suspend it all? It seems to me that’s the two-step we’re moving to here until we can figure out what’s going on with any of these immigrants coming in.”

Trump Spox: Muslim Ban 'Not Religious Discrimination' Because Any Muslim Can 'Flip Into A Jihadist'

Katrina Pierson, a national spokeswoman for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, addressed concerns about Trump’s proposal for a ban on Muslim immigration on Friday by saying such a ban would not be “religious discrimination” because you don’t “have the freedom to kill Americans just because it’s based on your religion.” She added that any Muslim “can just flip into a jihadist” and that Americans victimized by Islamist terrorism are now being “criminalized.”

“It’s absolutely not religious discrimination,” Pierson told One American News Network’s Liz Wheeler , because one of the things that we keep hearing is that it’s not constitutional, it’s un-American, etc., etc., freedom of religion. But I have to tell you, I’m not sure that anyone in this country agrees that you have the freedom to kill Americans just because it’s based in your religion.”

Pierson then linked Trump’s proposal to the American lives lost in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “But more importantly,” she said, "this was a ban simply on immigration coming in as a Muslim. We all know that Muslims are not hostile, all of them. However, we also know that they are killing Americans in the name of Islam and we have to take that seriously. And what I don’t understand is that since 9/11, we have the Iraq War, we have the fight in Afghanistan, that’s 10,000 American lives, and we still have a porous border, we haven’t reformed the visa system, and just when we had the San Bernardino attacks, he was radicalized for a couple of years and she came in on a visa and passed with flying colors.”

“I’m not quite sure why there’s this real big push to sort of cover the hostility that comes within the faith of Islam,” Pierson added later in the interview. “We have two sides of this coin. We have the ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ but, at the same time, all of the sudden the same people can just flip into a jihadist. We have to figure this out one way or another because one thing we can no longer continue to do is allow Americans to be attacked on their own soil and then be criminalized afterwards.”

Gun Activists: Obama Raising Private Army Of Undocumented Immigrants, Refugees, Federal Employees & 'Soviet Troops'

Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, perhaps more than any other activist on the Right provides a direct bridge between the Republican establishment and the chain-email conspiracy theories festering on the right-wing internet.

This was perfectly illustrated this weekend when, just one day after Sen. Ted Cruz announced that GOA’s chairman and Pratt’s boss Tim Macy would head up his presidential campaign’s “Second Amendment Coalition,” Pratt took to his “Gun Owners News Hour” radio program to discuss how President Obama is secretly building up a private army that can only be defeated if patriotic members of the military turn against him.

Pratt’s guest on Saturday’s program was Lawrence C. Mackin, the author of a new novel called “The Police Revolt of 2016,” which imagines a ragtag group of police officers and military personnel who must organize a revolution when “a group of radical Islamists allied with Obama's private internal army composed of units from the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, are planning to establish an Islamic dictatorship within the United States,” a premise that Pratt said was “not too fictional.”

Mackin came prepared with a great number of conspiracy theories that he had found on the internet, telling Pratt that Obama signed a deal with Russia “to bring Soviet troops into this country in the event that we needed extra security, such as a Super Bowl event, for example” as part of his “plan to build up his private internal army within the United States.”

Also manning Obama’s private army, Mackin said, would be undocumented immigrants and “all the illegal aliens from the Middle East that he’s bringing into this country right now,” who are “all men.”

Mackin also informed Pratt that former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano “stated that she wanted to buy an AR-15 rifle — that’s a personal defense weapon — for every federal employee” so that they could also join “Obama’s private army.”

His book, he told Pratt, is not that “far-fetched” because all of these things are already happening in the Obama administration.

Pratt agreed that the premise was entirely realistic because “as much as the president has tried to cull the military of senior officers who are known to be pro-American … he certainly hasn’t gotten them all, so if it ever did come down the rubber meeting the road, the president really couldn’t be sure that he would be giving an order that would be followed.”

If the president’s plan to build a private army continues, Pratt said, “at some point the guys and gals would say, that’s it, he’s gone too far, today’s the day, let’s go, let’s roll.”

I think we’re at that point right now,” Mackin said, “but again, we’re just looking for a leader.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Pratt brought up the debunked rumor that the nuclear deal with Iran included a mutual defense agreement that would require the U.S. to attack Israel if Israel attacked Iran, which Mackin said was just more proof that Obama is a “radical Muslim.”

Bachmann: 'Donald Trump Is Right' On Muslim Immigration Ban

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann praised Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. yesterday, telling WorldNetDaily that “Donald Trump is right” and that his plan "is the only one that ensures the innocence, safety and security of all Americans, Muslims included":

Former GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann said the media is reacting as though citizens of foreign countries have constitutional rights to enter the U.S.

“Donald Trump is right,” said Bachmann, of Minnesota, which has had its share of problems with Islamic terrorists recruiting young Somali refugees.

“Obama’s insane open-door immigration policies are getting innocent Americans killed.

“No one has a right to enter the United States,” Bachmann continued. “Until we can set up a working, fail-safe vetting system, Trump’s idea is the only one that ensures the innocence, safety and security of all Americans, Muslims included.”

 

Perkins: 'Only 16 Percent Of Islam Is A Religion' So Immigration Ban Not A 'Religious Test On Muslims'

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins jumped into the debate over Donald Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. yesterday, citing the same shoddy Center for Security Policy poll as Trump to say that “we shouldn’t be embarrassed to say that we oppose those who want to come to the United States to destroy it.”

In an email to FRC members last night with the subject line “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sharia?,” Perkins did not mention Trump’s proposal directly, but alluded to the “national discussion” about “who should and shouldn’t be in the country.”

Warning that unlike previous generations today’s immigrants don’t want to “come to America and assimilate,” Perkins declared that the U.S. may soon “lose our identity in the shadow of muliticulturalism.”

He then addressed the debate about Muslim immigration, writing, “What most people either don't realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion — the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn’t a judicial or economic code — but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment.”

How Do You Solve a Problem like Sharia?

The word "contentious" doesn't begin to describe the American immigration debate over the last two decades. But in recent days, the lines are being redrawn -- and with it, the national conversation. The focus is no longer being dominated by illegal immigration south of Texas but "legal" immigration coming from across the Atlantic, where a bold new enemy is exposing weaknesses in the West's tolerance.

Attacks in Paris, followed by a mass shooting in California have made believers of Americans, who doubted that radicalized Muslims were one of the greatest threats to our nation. Now, with President Obama offering to throw open the door to more Syrian refugees, more voters from both parties are ready to put the brakes on the process until a better, safer vetting protocol is in place.

As the national discussion turns to immigration, people are starting to stake out positions on who should and shouldn't be in the country. But first, we need to consider one of the unfortunate realities -- in America and elsewhere -- which is that the purpose of immigration has changed. It used to exist for people who wanted to come to America and assimilate. Now, in a dramatic shift from even our grandparents' generation, the "sensitivity" and "diversity" doctrine of the modern age is suggesting that we create cultural enclaves, where outsiders come to our country and live as if they never left home.

That doesn't work, as Europe will tell you. Instead, we lose our identity in the shadow of multiculturalism. It's happened in France, and it's happening in Britain. Leaders are learning a painful message that if you tiptoe around the global realities, you'll pay for it. If people want to live in America -- including Muslims -- they need to embrace our Constitution and our culture. Others have said in less artful ways what conservatives have been warning for years: there is no such thing as coexistence between Sharia law and our constitutional republic. That isn't religious prejudice, but an ideological reality.

What most people either don't realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion -- the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn't a judicial or economic code -- but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment. Under the framework proposed by Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rick Santorum, America wouldn't vet refugees based on religion but an ideology that's incompatible with American liberty. "I've proposed actual concrete things [like eliminating the visa lottery system] and immigration law that would have -- not the effect of banning all Muslims, but a lot of them," Santorum explained.

The bottom line is this: the U.S. Constitution is an agreement between people about how they'll be governed. What good is it if people immigrate to America with the sole purpose of undermining that contract? We shouldn't be embarrassed to say that we oppose those who want to come to the United States to destroy it. And while most Muslims are not radicalized, Sharia certainly encourages it. Based on polling from the Center for Security Policy, that's the system most would choose. The majority of Muslims in America believe they "'should have the choice of being governed by Sharia [law].' Sharia authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings, and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women."

In America, we have freedom under the construct of ordered liberty. Even the Wall Street Journal struggles with the clash of these ideologies. "Certainly Islam and the America way of life are compatible in as much as America is capable of welcoming Muslims who are not Islamic supremacists. On the other hand, it's always struck us that categorical statements to the effect that Islam [is peaceful] are far more hortatory than empirical -- which is to say that there is a gap between Islam as it actually exists and Islam as...President Obama would like it to be. How wide that gap is, and how dangerous, we do not know." Nor, I would argue, should we risk the future of our nation to find out.

Brigitte Gabriel: 'Trump Is General Patton Reincarnated'

ACT! for America’s Brigitte Gabriel is, unsurprisingly, a big fan of Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims from the United States, telling Florida talk radio host Joyce Kaufman yesterday that Trump is “General Patton reincarnated.”

“I was talking with a friend of mine this morning,” Gabriel said, “and he said to me, ‘Trump is General Patton reincarnated. Trump is General Patton in a suit. General Patton, if he was alive today, he would be talking exactly like Trump, he would be doing exactly like Trump. This is the type of leaders we used to have which made America great, and what Trump is trying to do is make America great again. He is the General Patton of our lifetime.’ It was so interesting hearing those words, because you sit back and you think, Donald Trump, he has a way of saying words, but boy did he touch a nerve nationwide.”

Sessions Defends Trump On Muslim Ban, Says It's 'Appropriate To Begin To Discuss This'

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who helped Donald Trump craft his far-right immigration platform, came cautiously to Trump’s defense today after Trump proposed banning all Muslims from entering the United States. Sessions said that Trump was “treading on dangerous ground” but that it is “appropriate to begin to discuss” the issue.

“Well, he’s treading on dangerous ground,” Sessions told Stephen Bannon on Breitbart News’ SiriusXM program this morning, “because Americans are so deeply committed to freedom of religion, that is a major part of who we are.”

“But,” he added, “at the same time, we’re in an age that’s very dangerous and we’re seeing more and more persons enter and a lot of them have done terrorist acts and a lot of them believe it’s commanded by their religion … So I think it’s appropriate to begin to discuss this, and he has forced that discussion. We may even have a discussion about it in Judiciary Committee today. But, you know, it’s time for us to think this through and the classical, internal American religious principles I don’t think apply providing constitutional protections to persons not citizens who want to come here.”

“As a principle, we want to be not condemnatory of other people’s religion,” he continued. “And there are millions of wonderful, decent, good Muslims, hundreds of millions worldwide, and so we’ve got to be really careful that we don't cross that line and I guess Mr. Trump has caused us all to think about it more concretely.”

Jim Simpson: Immigrants Will 'Destroy The Culture,' Usher In 'Despotic Governments'

Jim Simpson, an activist who works with Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy to oppose U.S. refugee resettlement efforts, claimed earlier this month that liberals support refugee resettlement and other immigration measures because they want to “destroy the culture” and ultimately “create a huge pool of voters” that they can use to institute “despotic governments.”

Speaking with Alaska talk radio host and former GOP Senate nominee Joe Miller in a program that was posted online on Saturday, Simpson said that “the illegal alien, open borders agenda, the refugee resettlement agenda, for that matter, they all serve all of the left’s strategies.”

It all started, he said, with Sen. Ted Kennedy’s immigration and refugee resettlement efforts.

“His goal was to see America swamped with as many people from as many disparate cultures, poor cultures around the world as he possibly could,” Simpson explained. “That guaranteed two things. It guaranteed, one, that we would have a huge and growing population of needy people who would require government benefits, something perfectly tailored for the Democrats to go out and purchase votes by providing those benefits.

“And, two, to dilute the American culture to the point where it’s unrecognizable, to the point where you and me as red-blooded Americans are just two people on the block among eight or 10 others who are from all over the world and who could care less about the Constitution, could care less about the freedoms that we hold dear, could care less about the American dream and all of the things that go with it. They want the benefits but they don’t want the associated responsibilities. And the Democrats, it’s a perfect recipe for them to amass power. Why? Because you have a population of needy people and, two, those needy people will vote for you.”

Later in the program, Simpson added that refugee resettlement is part of a UN plot “to not merely redistribute income but to redistribute populations around the world and take people from poor countries and move them into wealthy countries as a means of redistributing, so that they can share the benefits of the wealthy countries that they have not been able to before.”

But, he said, “the true agenda” of refugee resettlement and immigration “is much more malevolent.” Liberals, he said, are using immigration “to destroy the culture, to suck up welfare resources and to create a huge pool of voters that will allow the radical left to gain an unbeatable majority for the foreseeable future and after that we will see institution of despotic governments.”

Ann Coulter: Trump's Muslim Ban Was 'My Best Birthday Gift Ever!'

Ann Coulter is, unsurprisingly, one of the conservative activists most enthusiastic about Donald Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States , telling Florida talk radio host Joyce Kaufman yesterday that Trump’s proposal was her “best birthday gift ever!”

Coulter was less impressed by the Republican “eunuchs” who came out to denounce Trump, including Mitt Romney, whom she had hoped would run for president on a joint ticket with Trump .

“The hysteria is amazing, and a lot of the hysteria is coming from our side,” she said. “I mean, I really do think Fox is terrified here, and, I hate to say it, my mild pal Romney has signed onto the denunciations of Trump; Dick Cheney; Paul Ryan; of course all these eunuchs running in the presidential race against Donald Trump.”

Kaufman, for her part, cited the internment of Japanese Americans as a positive precedent for Trump’s idea, saying, “They forget their history. I mean, they forget that Franklin Delano Roosevelt interred the Japanese. They forget that Jimmy ‘Hitler’ Carter made the Iranians, they were banned during the hostage crisis.”

The two, of course, could not resist also attacking immigrants from Mexico.

“I find this the same as not wanting drug cartels and coyotes taking over southwester parts of my country, which now have a drug culture which is killing a whole generation of American youth,” Kaufman said.

Coulter agreed, saying that “probably more Americans are killed by Mexicans” than by Muslims.

Coulter added that the people saying that Trump’s Muslim ban would be impossible to carry out are “the same people who said the exact same thing about building a wall” on the southern border.

“It is absolutely possible to not keep importing …more than 100,000 Muslims per year,” she said.

GOP Rep: People With 'A Middle Eastern Background That We Can't Verify' Need To 'Be Out Of The Country'

Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., said yesterday that the U.S. needs to look at “the people that are here that shouldn’t be here” and “if they have a Middle Eastern background that we can’t verify, they need to be out of the country.”

Yoho did not specify what he meant by people who “shouldn’t be here” or what the verification process would be in his comments, which he made during an interview on “The Palin Update,” a radio show hosted by Sarah Palin enthusiasts.

“If you look at what the role of the federal government is, its number-one role is to provide for the common defense of the United States of America,” he said. “And we need to look at securing our border, we need to look at enforcing the laws on the books. The people that are here that shouldn’t be here, we need to have a way of vetting and screening them. If they have a Middle Eastern background that we can’t verify, they need to be out of the country.”

He added that the U.S. should put a “pause” on the resettlement of refugees from Middle Eastern countries.

Yoho also lashed out at President Obama for his defense of refugees, saying, “He accuses the Republicans of being afraid of women and children. I’m concerned about women and children, and those are the women and children in my country, my wife, my daughters, your children, your families. We should be concerned about that before we worry about somebody else.”

Later in the interview, the program’s host, Kevin Scholla, asked Yoho if it is “too late” for Congress to impeach President Obama, which Yoho said it certainly is not.

“Man, I tell you what, I can’t thank you for bringing that subject up,” he said. “No, I don’t think it’s too late.”

He touted a bill he wrote that would define what constitute impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” in order to “show the borders of the football field so that the executive, the Supreme Court justices and everybody in Washington and government knows where the boundaries are and if you step outside of that you’re going to be penalized.”

He added that his constituents are “clamoring” for impeachment.

Rick Santorum Has A 'More Practical Way' Than Trump To Ban 'A Lot Of' Muslims

Rick Santorum reacted today to Donald Trump’s call for banning all Muslims from entering the country by insisting that he has “a more practical way than the way Donald Trump is suggesting” to ban not all Muslims, “but a lot of them.”

Santorum told Stephen Bannon on the SiriusXM program “Breitbart News Daily” this morning that he has “proposed actual concrete things in our immigration law that would have not the effect of banning all Muslims, but a lot of them.”

“We start changing our immigration laws, we can deal with this problem,” he said. “I think the way Trump has proposed it, it may have some constitutional infirmity. We can do it in a more practical way than the way that Donald Trump is suggesting.”

Santorum also told Bannon that while he is considered an “enemy of ISIS,” the terrorist group doesn’t “call President Obama an enemy” because he “creates the false narrative which allows ISIS to survive.”

“The reason they called me an enemy was because I identified them accurately and said why they had to be defeated, just like I explained to you,” he said. “To them, that made me an enemy, because I was someone out there telling the truth which will, if the American public and the West would believe it, would lead to the destruction of ISIS. They don’t call President Obama an enemy because President Obama creates the obfuscation, creates the false narrative which allows ISIS to survive.”

“They’re very happy that the president’s out there trying to convince the Muslim world that they’re illegitimate,” he added.

Santorum told Newsmax TV yesterday that ISIS in fact sees Obama “as an ally.” ISIS, however, does not seem to agree with this view.

Iowa GOPer: Execute Certain Undocumented Immigrants Who Try To Reenter The Country

On Monday, the Knoxville Journal Express reported that Iowa State Sen. Mark Chelgren, who this year is challenging Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, for his seat in Congress, suggested that the U.S. use the death penalty to punish undocumented immigrants who commit felonies in the U.S. and later try to reenter the country.

“For border security, Chelgren believes a fence would define the border and control who enters and leaves. If one is found to have crossed into the country illegally, committed a felony while here, then been deported, he supports executing that individual if they break America's immigration laws a second time,” the paper reported.

Chelgren, who has served in the Iowa state senate since 2010, later confirmed his remarks in an interview with the Des Moines Register, saying that he “will be strong on crime” and “make sure that we don’t have criminals coming into the United States and victimizing our citizens.” He said that Democrats were “race-baiting” by criticizing his proposal.

State Sen. Mark Chelgren, a southeast Iowa Republican who is running for Congress, says he favors consideration of capital punishment for criminal immigrants who continually enter the United States illegally.

Iowa Democrats harshly criticized that stance Tuesday, and a spokesman for the Republican Party of Iowa issued a statement disassociating the party with Chelgren's comments.

Chelgren, an Ottumwa businessman, was quoted Monday by the Journal-Express of Knoxville and Marion County as saying that for border security, he believes a fence would define the border and control who enters and leaves. If one is found to have crossed into the country illegally, committed a felony while here, then been deported, he supports executing that individual if he or she breaks U.S. immigration laws a second time, the newspaper said.



Chelgren recently announced plans to seek Iowa's 2nd District U.S. House seat now held by Rep. Dave Loebsack, an Iowa City Democrat. He confirmed the remarks made to the Journal-Express in an interview Tuesday with The Des Moines Register, but he said he was only suggesting that capital punishment be considered narrowly in situations where persons repeatedly enter the United States with the intent of committing terrorism or other felony crimes. He contended that Democratic Party officials were overreacting to his remarks and engaging in "race-baiting."

"I am looking at people who are deported and who re-enter the country illegally. Obviously, I don't want to tear apart families. We need to be sure we are protecting the people of the United States," Chelgren said.

He added, "Of course, I will be strong on crime. I want to make sure that we don't have criminals coming into the United States and victimizing our citizens."

Diana West Praises Donald Trump For Exposing 'The Population Replacement Of The West'

In an interview with the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney last week, conservative author Diana West lamented that the “messianic cult of multiculturalism” is giving cover to “the population replacement of the West by the rest of the world” in the form of immigration, praising Donald Trump for bringing “this issue into political forums that it never, ever entered before.”
 



Claiming that multiculturalism allowed Europeans to ignore “the obvious signs that we were about to enter this violent stage of jihad,” West said that the U.S. is on a similar precipice thanks to immigration from Latin America.

“What’s happening in Europe is happening here, we have a similar immigration phenomenon coming up from Latin America, primarily, and … many others from across the world coming across our borderless southern flank,” she said. “But this is the same thing we’re seeing with the immigration coming into Europe. This is the destruction of the West, this is the population replacement of the West by the rest of the world, by what we call the Third World, by the Middle East, by Islam, by Africa, by South America, this is all happening and it needs to be understood in a totality.”

“And, yes, I would hope there is a concerted effort to push back,” she added, “and this is where we see the phenomenon of Donald Trump having brought this issue into political forums that it never, ever entered before, so for that we can be thankful and build.”

 

Robert Spencer: Obama Inviting Terrorists To America To Make Us Like The Rest Of The World

Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer reached deep into the well of anti-Obama conspiracy theories in an interview with Janet Mefferd last week, claiming that the fact that the president was once spotted reading a book by Fareed Zakaria shows that he is intent on making America “level” with the rest of the world by bringing in terrorists in the form of Syrian refugees.

The president wants to admit refugees from the Syrian civil war, Spencer said, “because he’s a leveler and he believes that the United States is the problem in the world.”

As evidence, he cited the fact that Obama was photographed in 2008 reading a copy of Zakaria’s “The Post-American World,” which Spencer — not exactly accurately — claimed argues that the U.S. should be “weakened militarily, politically and economically.”

“I think it’s unarguable that that’s been Obama’s program,” he said. “It certainly has weakened America in all those ways. And the thing is that this Syrian refugee crisis is part of the same thing, that he brings everyone over here, brings even jihadis over here, and here again then we’re just like the rest of the world where this kind of thing like the Paris attacks happens with much more frequency than it has here up to now. And it’s all part of this socialistic leveling and anti-American stance that the president has had not only as president, but throughout his career.”

Steve King: Only Ted Cruz Can Save Us From Obama's 'Cultural Suicide' Pills

Rep. Steve King joined conservative Iowa radio host Steve Deace last week to discuss his recent endorsement of Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, which he said was motivated by his confidence that Cruz would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices and reverse President Obama’s attempt to commit “cultural suicide” through immigration.

King, an Iowa Republican, said that aside from the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling, his main concern was that America is following in Europe’s footsteps in committing “cultural suicide,” with President Obama administering the suicide pills in the form of refugees and other immigrants.

“I see Europe,” he said, “it’s almost past tense, you can almost say they have committed cultural suicide. And Barack Obama has been feeding us the medication that will bring about cultural suicide in the United States. And we need a president who sees that whole picture and knows that it has to be restored and has an understanding of how to restore the American exceptionalism, constitutional underpinnings and the core of our faith.”

King added that he saw such a “transformation of Western Christendom” in recent visits to immigrant communities in Minneapolis and Dearborn, Michigan, which, he said, highlighted the “demographics” that he hoped a President Ted Cruz could reverse in America.

“By the way, I went up to Minnesota, to Little Mogadishu, to see what that’s like up there,” he said, “and I spent a weekend in Dearborn to see what, again, went to a couple of mosques in there to see the transformation of the United States. And I’ve gone into a number of the major cities in Europe and walked into those no-go zones and walked down through the Muslim neighborhoods and I see the transformation of Western Christendom, and it’s very troubling. And when you look at the demographics, we must do something to reverse this, and [Cruz] is the candidate that I believe [can do it].”

Phyllis Schlafly Wants 'Railroad Cars Full Of Illegals Going South'

Excited about Donald Trump’s call for the mass deportation of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly told WorldNetDaily this weekend that she wants American railways to join the deportation effort, hoping to one day “see those railroad cars full of illegals going south.”

Blasting President Obama’s call for the U.S. to take in Syrian refugees as “ridiculous,” she warned that “Obama wants to change the character of our country” by bringing in people who “have no comprehension of our constitutional system, of limited government, of the people being in control.”

“Every time they say, ‘You can’t deport these people, in my mind’s eye, I see the picture of those railroad cars carrying the illegals out of our country when Eisenhower deported them. They say it was a failure. It wasn’t at all,” Schlafly told WND in an exclusive interview. “In my mind’s eye, I see those railroad cars full of illegals going south. That’s what they ought to do.”



“Obama wants to change the character of our country,” Schlafly charged, reacting to an expose highlighted at the top of The Drudge Report on Friday.

“These people come in and have no comprehension of our constitutional system, of limited government, of the people being in control, and I think it’s very tragic,” she continued.

“We had a wonderful country of freedom and prosperity, and that’s why everyone in the world wants to come here. But we can’t let everyone in the world in. And we need to be very persnickety about who we let in. We only want people who love America and want to be American.”



Schlafly said Obama’s plan to flood the U.S. with unscreened foreigners “certainly isn’t American,” and she never thought she’d see the day when a U.S. president failed to do his duty to protect the nation.

“I never did. Even the ones I didn’t vote for, I think, would have stood up for America,” Schlafly said. “Obama has told us that he doesn’t believe America should be thought of as better or exceptional. … Obama has a mystique about him, and he continues to go down what I think is the wrong path. We need a leader who’s going to stand up for America.”

Many politicians – Democrat and Republican – argue that the U.S. has a duty to accept “refugees.”

But Schlafly isn’t having any of that “ridiculous” nonsense.

“These ideas that they’re putting out, that we have some obligation to admit all these people, are just ridiculous,” she said. “We don’t have an obligation to admit anybody. A country that doesn’t have borders isn’t a country. We need to have borders.”



She added, “I think the grassroots are going to win out because there are more of them every day who are believing what Trump says and disbelieving what the elite are trying to tell us.”

Right-Wing Pundit: Obama Created Middle East Crisis In Order to 'Inundate This Country With Radicals'

Joe Miller, the one-time Republican nominee for Senate from Alaska who now hosts a right-wing radio program, invited pastor Carl Gallups to his program recently to discuss the war in Syria and the resulting refugee crisis, which Gallups said was all part of President Obama’s plan to bring “millions of Muslim refugees” to the U.S. in order to either allow Democrats to “stay in office forever” or to bring about a “Muslim overthrow of the United States.”

Miller asked Gallups if in fact “this was the plan all along, to create conflict in the Middle East, have a refugee crisis and inundate this country with radicals.”

Gallups recalled that Avi Lipkin, a conservative activist and the source of many right-wing conspiracy theories, told him when Obama was first running for office that “the Arabs are predicting that deep into Obama’s term in office that he will, quote, create a crisis in the Middle East, which will then create a surge in Islamic terrorism, which will create a Muslim refugee crisis.”

This, Gallups recalled Lipkin saying, would lead to “an influx of many millions of Muslim refugees into the United States, which “Muslims will use it as a Trojan horse vehicle for getting terrorists into an on American soil.”

Lipikin has also passed this theory to End Times radio host and conspiracy theory enthusiast Rick Wiles, who shared it on his radio program earlier this week.

Lipkin’s intelligence is so reliable that in 2012 he predicted that President Obama would “bring in 50 to 100 million” Muslims to America so that “America will be Muslim by 2016." So far, since the civil war in Syria began, the U.S. has taken in only about 2,000 Syrian refugees.

Later in the conversation, Miller and Gallups discussed what Obama’s motive might be for this grand conspiracy.

Miller asked why the U.S. wouldn’t demand that all Syrian refugees stay in Turkey — which is already housing at least 1.7 million refugees from the conflict — “unless you’ve got some sort of ulterior motive, in other words, maybe the Trojan horse or maybe some political motive.”

“I mean, the Democrats, the left, are always looking for some way to broaden their coalition,” he said, “and they’ve looked toward, you know, illegals before, now maybe they’re looking toward Muslims.”

Gallups replied that this political sheme is “a huge part of it,” but that there could be even more sinister motives.

“You can go pretty deep in this conspiracy theory if you want,” he said, “you could go all the way down to a Muslim overthrow of the United States ushered in by Muslim sympathizers, or you can just back it up a few notches and say what you just said, which we know for a fact, we’ve heard various political operatives admit they are attempting to use the broken border or the created broken border situation to bolster the rolls of the Democrat voters. They want to be able to stay in office forever in a, quote, legal way. It’s a drummed-up illegal legal way, but that is a plan, we know that. So certainly this feeds directly into that if, in fact, it’s not something even more sinister than that, Joe.”

Rep. Brian Babin: 'Mary And Jesus Didn’t Have Suicide Bomb Vests Strapped On Them'

Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, has been a leading voice of efforts to restrict refugee resettlement in the U.S. and is the sponsor of a bill to defund the resettlement program, which has gained traction as many have scapegoated Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks.

Brietbart News’ Stephen Bannon invited Babin on to his SiriusXM program on Tuesday to discuss these efforts to block refugees, where he asked the congressman to respond to people who might call anti-refugee activists “haters.”

“What they’re going to bring up over the holiday season is, ‘Mary and Joseph were refugees. Mary and Joseph when they went into Egypt were refugees,’” Bannon said.

“Well, Steve, I would just say this,” Babin responded. “Mary and Jesus didn’t have suicide bomb vests strapped on them, and these folks do. You can see it in technicolor in Paris.”

Rand Paul: Iraqi Refugees Moving To America Like If Founding Fathers Moved To England

Sen. Rand Paul came up with an interesting analogy in an attempt to argue against refugee resettlement yesterday, saying that Iraqi refugees seeking resettlement in the U.S. “when we won the war” is “sort of like us winning the revolution and our Founding Fathers decide to take political asylum in England.”

Paul, who has used the “we won the war” logic while discussing Iraqi refugees before, fought back against criticism of his legislation to stop the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the U.S. in an interview with Breitbart News, saying it’s “ridiculous to say it has anything to do with hate” because “you’ll never meet someone who is more fair-minded than myself, who believes in individual rights of every individual no matter what their religion is.”

Paul recalled the arrest of two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky who were accused of sending weapons to Al Qaeda in Iraq, the sole case of terrorism charges among the 745,000 refugees admitted to the U.S. since the September 11 attacks. (None have been accused of planning domestic attacks). “My question at the time was why did we admit 60,000 Iraqi refugees when we won the war?” Paul asked. “I thought you got political asylum if you lost the war.”

“Here’s my point also is that if they were pro-Western, which many of them probably are, they would have been the best people to rebuild Iraq in a reasonable fashion,” the Kentucky Republican added. “It would be sort of like us winning the revolution and our Founding Fathers decide to take political asylum in England. You know, it just makes no sense at all.”

Among the many obvious faults with Paul’s analogy is that, as Think Progress has noted, “Many of the Iraqis seeking asylum are people who helped the United States military or contractors as translators and guides,” a somewhat different relationship than the American revolutionaries had with England.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious