He cannot remain silent anymore. Former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney retired after a 15 year career at DHS. He says that he can’t remain silent anymore about the “dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy”. He believes that “our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack.”
In an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox, Haney said the believed that both the San Bernardino and Orlando terrorist attacks were related and may have been prevented if the DHS had not deleted the records that he had compiled on “Muslims with terror ties”.
He discovered a connection with the mosque where Omar Mateen attended to be networked with the mosque where Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik worshiped.
Responsibility for the attacks fall at the feet of Obama who wiped the information that would have helped keep America safe. Read the rest of the story on page 2 and watch the interview with Hannity.
Renee Maples , Obama & Islam
Quote:….Pres.Barack Hussein Obama
” The Future must not belong to those
who slander the Prophet of Islam ” !!
Quote:…Pres. Barack Hussein Obama
” I stand with the Muslim & will never go
against Islam ” !! ———————————————————————— VALERIE JARRETT. 1977 Stanford yearbook
Here is the lead fox in the house. This one gets to whisper in the kings ear many times a day.
I’d like to draw your attention to the small print next to Valerie’s name….while attending Stanford University.
Ponder and re-ponder what she boldly stated way back in 1977 “…….using freedom of religion in America against itself.”
AND guess what….that is exactly what she and her Muslim czars have…and are doing….as we sleep.
VALERIE JARRETT – The Top Muslim in the Top Power Seat – Obama’s TOP ADVISOR
Yes ladies and gentlemen, THIS is Obama’s top advisor. This is what’s running our Country!!!!!!!!
Seems as if his promise to fundamentally change America is in full swing. Wonder why he can’t utter the words “Muslim terrorists?
Had enough yet?
Renee Maples , This is already happening here & Obama is bringing them into small towns outside of large cities so he can sneak them in , in N.Carolina , Texas , Minnesota(with a crapy Govnr. ) ,Michigan(crappy Govnr.), Wisconsin(crappy Govnr.) !!!! ——————————————————————–>> Muslim rapes in Sweden
According to Afton Bladet, a group of eight Muslim migrants, aged 21-34, were sentenced for the brutal gang rape of a young Swedish mother at an asylum center in Mariannelund.
“He [Rahmati] was the one who started the abuse. The first time it was common vaginal$#%&!@* Then they took turns raping her. Both vaginally and anally. They pressed it (penises) so deep down her throat that she had difficulty breathing,” reads the verdict.
The gang rape was so severe that when police found the victim the morning after, she was disoriented and smeared with her own blood. The young mother sustained such horrendous injury that she was bound to a wheelchair and required psychiatric care for four weeks.
The woman courageously described the abuse to authorities, disclosing that the men took turns beating and raping her all night, laughing and applauding the entire time. The eight refugees raped her vaginally, orally, and anally, sometimes all at the same time.
This case might be the most gruesome in Sweden’s history, but it certainly won’t be the last. In fact, the European country is experiencing a massive wave of sexual assault with the influx of Muslim migrants granted access.
Mad World News previously reported that a 23-year-old Swedish woman was brutally gang raped in Södermalm by at least three Muslim refugees. Of course, one of the asylum seekers was immediately released “because his age could not be determined.
In another case, a 3-year-old girl was raped by a 40-year-old Muslim refugee, but instead of turning in the pedophile, the Swedish Migration Board covered up his crime and moved him to another location.
In yet another case, a 15-year-old girl was gang raped by a group of Muslim migrants, but her attackers were promptly acquitted because the judge believed the teen could have stopped her attackers if she wanted.
Renee Maples , What Happens When You Open Your Home To Muslim Refugees
Well now you will see how really non-peaceful Muslims are & this is why they do not belong here & these are here on a Liberals farm & now
took it over from them……..nice job Oval Office……..Gene
Liberals Just Found Out What Happens When You Open Your Home To Muslim Refugees DECEMBER 27, 2015
BY DEAN JAMES
2 white liberals found out the hard way that it’s not a good idea to open your hearts or homes to Muslim refugees- in fact it’s downright dangerous.
Back in July, News 24 did an article titled “Meet the angels who opened their hearts and home to 143 lost strangers” which was a liberal lovefest about the kindness and generosity of the couple as well as how well behaved and grateful the Muslims were.
Andrew and Rae Wartnaby opened up their 50-acre farm to over 100 Muslim refugees who were reportedly displaced during ‘xenophobic attacks.’
“We just have a heart for children. We want children to have families, be fed and looked after. At the beginning of the attacks I wanted to go to Durban and help, but God said to me that I should not get involved now. He said we must wait and he would need us in the end,” said Rae.
When asked how the family was coping she said: “It’s been a day. Everybody is organized. We told everyone that they are welcome in our home and they are guests here.”
That was then. This is now.
Now, News 24 did a followup article titled, “Refugees turn on their host.”
Here’s an excerpt:
THE good Samaritans who took onto their farm over 100 refugees displaced by this year’s xenophobic violence, now claim they have been threatened with murder by the same people they had set out to help.
Besides property being destroyed, the family who took in the immigrants have also been accused of not helping them to be relocated back home or to another country, driving a chasm between them.
Owners of Hope Farm in Cato Ridge, Andrew and Rae Wartnaby, were yesterday forced to evacuate their 10 children from their farm house in fear that they would be attacked or used as “bargaining tools”.
This, after a group of the foreign nationals they are housing on their farm attacked their home in the early hours of yesterday morning and threatened to kill Andrew.
Andrew said the Muslims cut and broke down the fence. “Then in the early hours of the morning, at around 2 am, they came smashing on my windows and doors and saying that they will kill me because I work for the government and I am not helping them.”
Andrew said that as he looked through a window, he saw the tent at the group’s camp engulfed in flames. “I immediately asked if everyone is okay but they kept shouting that tonight was my night and they will kill me. I haven’t slept since then,” said Andrew.
“When we took everyone in, we said we would try and help, which we have. But they feel like it has been too long and we let them down. I have asked that group to leave my farm, but they refuse to and to be honest, I don’t know what is going to happen. All I know is that I don’t want to be murdered tonight,” said Andrew.
Mad World News points out that time and time again we desperately warn the left that their own agenda will turn on them, and we see this same immigration policy played out on a smaller scale with the Wartnabys.
Muslim migrants are fundamentally different from any other refugees escaping religious brutality and political tyranny. Although they often flee their own ideology’s savagery, they bring the same barbarity wherever they go.
The Islamic Prophet Muhammad perfectly modeled how to use migration and the generosity of others as a stepping stool by which to overtake them. As a refugee to Medina, the messenger quietly built up his followers before slaughtering, converting, exiling, and subjugating the very tribes that welcomed him to their thriving, tolerant city.
The multiculturalism, tolerance, and religious freedom that once prevailed was stripped away by the commands of Allah that require Muslims to fight every ounce of their ability to establish Sharia law and forcibly spread Islam until it is the only religion left.
Meanwhile, the Africans are still in control of the farm at time of writing, and the leftist whites, who might or might not have learned their lesson, are in hiding
Renee Maples , A German’s View on Islam
Please read and pass along. I think it is important.
A German’s View on Islam – worth reading.
This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.’
‘My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
‘We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.’
‘The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.’
‘The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.’
‘The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
‘History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, We often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our Enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.’
‘Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.’
‘Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa, too, while the Lord’s Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.
‘In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation’s shores.
‘In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of “no-go” zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.
‘As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts – the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before it’s too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!!
Renee Maples , Peacefull Muslim refugees
MOST POPULAR POSTS
Canada: Liberals Turning Military Bases into Refugee Camps with Mosques, Qurans, Prayer Mats, Foot-Washing
VIDEO Resident of Calais speaks: “This is the death of civilization”
12 Muslims Jailed 140 Years for Gang-Raping 13-Year-Old Girl, Muslim Community Claims SHE was Partly to Blame
Muslim Men Living “By Their Own Laws” in UK, Rape Victims and Their Families Harassed, Threatened by Muslim Community
Mother of ten-year-old boy raped in Austrian swimming pool by Muslim migrant says she regrets telling her children ‘migrants need our help’
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/02/washington-muslim-prisoner-tries-to-behead-correction-officer-shouting-allahu-akbar.html/#sthash.FivzlJ7j.dpuf
Renee Maples , Behavior of Muslim /war/children by Vet.
This below should make your spine jump out your back & brain explode….
Those that are interested in the truth, will find it. Those that interested in PC will follow blindly.
I don’t typically go on rants or express my political beliefs here, but I just have to get this off my mind. As some of you know, I’m active duty Army. Aside from that, I am a medic. I’ve spent 3 years of my life overseas in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I’ve seen some pretty atrocious sites caused by war, from both sides. I’ve picked up blown up body parts of friends and I’ve saved the lives of guys who were trying to kill me and my guys right before I was keeping them from their 72 virgins or whatever they believe awaits them on the other side. Here is an unbiased truthful view to the Syrian refugee situation. My first deployment to Iraq, in 2006, my unit voluntarily ran a childrens burn clinic outside of the FOB. It was a constant target for attacks. You would think that people wouldn’t shoot mortars or rockets at their own children, but you would be wrong. We saw hundreds of children, from infants to 18 year olds. The overwhelming majority of the kids we saw (90% or better) were clear cases of abuse. These parents were literally dunking their kids in boiling water, or throwing hot chai at their kids faces… Yes, we’re talking about babies, toddlers, kids not even old enough to understand why their parents would do these things to them. HUNDREDS of kids… We saw quite a few of these kids that were sexually abused, both girls and boys. Their parents acted if nothing was wrong with this, even when confronted by our doctors. This is the mentality of their society, not the viewpoint of a few individuals… these beliefs have been accepted to the vast majority of these people. Many were educated, well dressed, well spoken men, but yet, they still raped their own children, and kept chai boys (if you don’t know what that means, google it.) During that deployment, we also captured the 3rd largest EFP cache that had ever been captured. There were hundreds of copper plates, homemade explosives, f**e curbs to house the EFP’s, hundreds of mortars and rockets and howitzer rounds, even an anti-aircraft gun. All of these things came from one place, Syria. Almost every single IED or EFP we found or hit could be traced back to Syria… A lot of the terrorists we captured were from SYRIA… Imagine that. Fast forward a couple years, and I find myself in Helmand Province, in Afghanistan… We had a group of Afghani’s that were paid to help guard our little mud hut in the middle of an Afghan village (I wasn’t on a fob) These guys also kept a “chai boy” A boy, about 11 years old, who was there to serve these guys sexually. We heard him being sexually assaulted many times, but there was nothing we could do about it. We asked the police, the Afghan Army, and we were told the same thing every time…. it’s their culture, and accepted as the norm…. Once again, we captured Syrian made explosives, weapons, and other items… We found Syrian passports during raids… And people out there want us to let these people into the US, with our kids, and near our wives. Near our schools, near our churches, synogogues, malls. Places where we should never have to fear being blown up, shot, kidnapped and tortured… Don’t forget what they did to the Egyptian Coptic Christians, or the Jordanian pilot… Don’t forget about what they do to rape victims! They stone these women to death for being raped! They behead their own people. Do you think they will show mercy to you? Look at the rape statistics in Denmark, Sweden, Belgium. Facts don’t lie… 97% of rapes committed in Sweden were committed by Muslim immigrants… And you want 10,000 of these people here? Even if just 1% of these so called “refugees” were ISIS supporters or active ISIS terrorists, would that be acceptable to you? Chew on it… think about it. Take a good look at your kids or your wife and decide if the risk is worth taking. Feel free to share this if you want.
T. Roosevelt had it right on Muslim Immigration
Mediates and politicians have tried to label Donald Trump a bigoted, xenophobic racist since announcing in June he was running for president. At Trump Tower, the Republican front runner vowed to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. In December, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States.
The press, most of his chief rivals, and even the president predictably went bizerk. President Obama said it was “totally contrary to our values as Americans,” values which he insists are “universal.” But the data, as I’ve explained repeatedly here and here, shows the truth.
American values are not universal. In fact, before the American Left adopted the failed theory of multiculturalism out of the soon-to-be lost European nations, even their own progressive heroes understood the basic need to demand assimilation.
While “it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin,” as President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907, “this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.”
Teddy-Roosevelt-immigration-1907
And there you have it. Roosevelt, the progressive hero who broke up the big monopolies, was a closet xenophobe.
While his critique could apply to other demographic groups, the problem of Muslim assimilation is particularly difficult because Islam is neither only a religion and definitely is not a race. Islam is a political, judicial, civil and spiritual way of life that not only insists upon “divided allegiance” but also holds geo-political aspirations.
In a majority of Muslim-dominated Middle East countries, large pluralities–and, in many countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan–majorities support making Sharia law the official law of the land. Worth noting, recent polls show 54% of Muslim Americans living right here is the U.S, right now, agree.
Now, as someone who has researched extensively and help define it, perhaps with and in more detail than any other before me, I can say with confidence that the American national identity is antithetical to the “values” forced upon subjects under Sharia, or Islamic law. They are not “universal values” and, subjugating the sovereign authority of the U.S. Constitution, at its core, violates a basic principle captured in Roosevelt’s words.
“We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people,” the former president said in 1907.
That’s exactly the point, which everyone wants to avoid. The Constitution places national loyalty to and sovereignty with the American people, an idea that is completely foreign to practicers of Islam.
Obama also pointed out the “extraordinary contributions” Muslim Americans have made to the U.S., including those serving in the military. About those contributions, while I certainly applaud any American’s service, the overall numbers are actually quite concerning.
Military enlistment, as we study the political maturation of other migrant groups in the 19th and 20th century, can serve as a fairly good indicator of assimilation. There are few equal or greater acts to demonstrate patriotism than military service. Unfortunately, the numbers for Muslims indicate there is a major assimilation problem juxtaposed to other migrant groups. That is, if you agree with President Roosevelt and Mr. Benedict Anderson, the latter being the man who literally wrote the book on the very real concept of nation.
According to the Pentagon, there are roughly 5,896 Muslims serving on either active duty or guard in the U.S. military. We heard this number cited repeatedly following Trump’s proposal, including from an outraged former Marine-turned-talk show host Montel Williams. But that represents just 0.00027550809655493385 percent of the roughly 2.2 million Americans currently serving their country, and 0.32755555555555554 percent of their share of the U.S. population. That’s far below the proportional 18,000 that would put them in line proportionately with the enlistment rates for the rest of the country.
Going back to World War II, when Italian-Americans were targets of ethic discrimination and struggling to assimilate, more than 500,000 served on behalf of the U.S., making their enlistment and service rates the highest among any minority ethnic group. The roughly 0.8333333333333334 percent of the 6 million Italian Americans serving in the U.S. military is despite the fact that they were fighting on the opposite side as their home country.
For those who want to blame a non-existent, widespread anti-Muslim environment, I’d just point out that 200,000 Jews served in World War I at a time when anti-Semitic sentiment in America was far worse. In fact, according to the latest statistics from the FBI, there are still far more and worse crimes driven by anti-Semitic than anti.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that politicians, pundits and just everyday Americans concerned about the future of our nation, should be able to point out these disturbing facts without being labeled xenophobic. A recent Pew Research study of demographic projections estimated that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing Americans who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country.
Considering the disturbing truth about Muslims’ views, which were revealed in a serious video produced by The Clarion Project in December, it’s not xenophobic to question the impact these demographic changes might have on American citizens. Public policy should hold the preservation of our values and our way of life above all, and the threat to that preservation would’ve concerned President Roosevelt just as much as it does Trump and his supporters.
Renne Maples , T. Roosevelt had it right on Muslim Immigration
Mediates and politicians have tried to label Donald Trump a bigoted, xenophobic racist since announcing in June he was running for president. At Trump Tower, the Republican front runner vowed to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. In December, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States.
The press, most of his chief rivals, and even the president predictably went bizerk. President Obama said it was “totally contrary to our values as Americans,” values which he insists are “universal.” But the data, as I’ve explained repeatedly here and here, shows the truth.
American values are not universal. In fact, before the American Left adopted the failed theory of multiculturalism out of the soon-to-be lost European nations, even their own progressive heroes understood the basic need to demand assimilation.
While “it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin,” as President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907, “this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.”
Teddy-Roosevelt-immigration-1907
And there you have it. Roosevelt, the progressive hero who broke up the big monopolies, was a closet xenophobe.
While his critique could apply to other demographic groups, the problem of Muslim assimilation is particularly difficult because Islam is neither only a religion and definitely is not a race. Islam is a political, judicial, civil and spiritual way of life that not only insists upon “divided allegiance” but also holds geo-political aspirations.
In a majority of Muslim-dominated Middle East countries, large pluralities–and, in many countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan–majorities support making Sharia law the official law of the land. Worth noting, recent polls show 54% of Muslim Americans living right here is the U.S, right now, agree.
Now, as someone who has researched extensively and help define it, perhaps with and in more detail than any other before me, I can say with confidence that the American national identity is antithetical to the “values” forced upon subjects under Sharia, or Islamic law. They are not “universal values” and, subjugating the sovereign authority of the U.S. Constitution, at its core, violates a basic principle captured in Roosevelt’s words.
“We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people,” the former president said in 1907.
That’s exactly the point, which everyone wants to avoid. The Constitution places national loyalty to and sovereignty with the American people, an idea that is completely foreign to practicers of Islam.
Obama also pointed out the “extraordinary contributions” Muslim Americans have made to the U.S., including those serving in the military. About those contributions, while I certainly applaud any American’s service, the overall numbers are actually quite concerning.
Military enlistment, as we study the political maturation of other migrant groups in the 19th and 20th century, can serve as a fairly good indicator of assimilation. There are few equal or greater acts to demonstrate patriotism than military service. Unfortunately, the numbers for Muslims indicate there is a major assimilation problem juxtaposed to other migrant groups. That is, if you agree with President Roosevelt and Mr. Benedict Anderson, the latter being the man who literally wrote the book on the very real concept of nation.
According to the Pentagon, there are roughly 5,896 Muslims serving on either active duty or guard in the U.S. military. We heard this number cited repeatedly following Trump’s proposal, including from an outraged former Marine-turned-talk show host Montel Williams. But that represents just 0.00027550809655493385 percent of the roughly 2.2 million Americans currently serving their country, and 0.32755555555555554 percent of their share of the U.S. population. That’s far below the proportional 18,000 that would put them in line proportionately with the enlistment rates for the rest of the country.
Going back to World War II, when Italian-Americans were targets of ethic discrimination and struggling to assimilate, more than 500,000 served on behalf of the U.S., making their enlistment and service rates the highest among any minority ethnic group. The roughly 0.8333333333333334 percent of the 6 million Italian Americans serving in the U.S. military is despite the fact that they were fighting on the opposite side as their home country.
For those who want to blame a non-existent, widespread anti-Muslim environment, I’d just point out that 200,000 Jews served in World War I at a time when anti-Semitic sentiment in America was far worse. In fact, according to the latest statistics from the FBI, there are still far more and worse crimes driven by anti-Semitic than anti.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that politicians, pundits and just everyday Americans concerned about the future of our nation, should be able to point out these disturbing facts without being labeled xenophobic. A recent Pew Research study of demographic projections estimated that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing Americans who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country.
Considering the disturbing truth about Muslims’ views, which were revealed in a serious video produced by The Clarion Project in December, it’s not xenophobic to question the impact these demographic changes might have on American citizens. Public policy should hold the preservation of our values and our way of life above all, and the threat to that preservation would’ve concerned President Roosevelt just as much as it does Trump and his supporters.
Renee Maples , #1..OF 2.—->When Teddy Roosevelt Banned Muslims from America
Author: Daniel Greenfield Frontpage Mag
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.
The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.
And indeed it would.
The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.
The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.
The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.
These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.
Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.
And Muslims would not.
In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”
Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization”, praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the “Moslem conquerors” whose depredations had caused Christianity to have “practically vanished from the two continents.”
While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the “mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian.”
In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.
Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.
The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.
Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.
Renee Maples , #2. of 2—->Though the law today is seldom enforced.
American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.
It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.
A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”
To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.
In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.
The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.
“You believe in the Koran?” asked President Stump.
“Thank Allah, yes,” responded the men in chorus.
“The Koran teaches polygamy?” continued the Inspector through an interpreter.
“Blessed be Allah, it does!”
“Then you believe in polygamy?” asked Captain George Ellis.
“We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do,” chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.
“That settles it,” said President Stump. “You won’t do.”
President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.
None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.
Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.
Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.
A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.
Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.
American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.
Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.