It’s a dark night at the airport, and the red-eye from Iraq to the United States is taxiing to the farthest side of the embarkation area. Maybe the lights are dim, but if you look closely you can make out the hunched figures of men coming down the gangway of the plane. A nearby bus quickly fills up and takes off, as mysteriously as the plane that had landed just minutes before.
That’s the story being told by Combat Veterans For Congress, which is alleging that the US is shipping refugees into international US airports through UPS airplanes to circumvent the vetting process.
If true, it would mean that innumerable thousands of unvetted and potentially dangerous refugees are coming to the United States with out any stringent oversight, besides the cursory glance of nervous plane captains and a few stewards.
Read more on page 2.
Virginia Lamp , Theodore Roosevelt has the perfect answer for today’s Muslim Migrant immigration crisis ! —————————>”We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
by Geoffrey Grider
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
America, a nation built on immigrants, has before been faced with a migrant crisis a time or two. But unlike how our leaders chose to handle it in 2015, our leaders a century ago had a much different perspective on things. Immigration is good for any nation, but multiculturalism is always the kiss of death. Listen to the words of the great American president, Teddy Roosevelt, and what his thoughts were on immigrants from any culture entering our borders, it’s quite enlightening.
“IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE SHOULD INSIST THAT IF THE IMMIGRANT WHO COMES HERE IN GOOD FAITH BECOMES AN AMERICAN AND ASSIMILATES HIMSELF TO US, HE SHALL BE TREATED ON AN EXACT EQUALITY WITH EVERYONE ELSE, FOR IT IS AN OUTRAGE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY SUCH MAN BECAUSE OF CREED, OR BIRTHPLACE, OR ORIGIN. BUT THIS IS PREDICATED UPON THE PERSON’S BECOMING IN EVERY FACET AN AMERICAN, AND NOTHING BUT 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. WE HAVE ROOM FOR BUT ONE FLAG, THE AMERICAN FLAG … WE HAVE ROOM FOR BUT ONE LANGUAGE HERE, AND THAT IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE … AND WE HAVE ROOM FOR BUT ONE SOLE LOYALTY AND THAT IS A LOYALTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.” – TEDDY ROOSEVELT, 1907
In other words, what Roosevelt was saying as it is applied to today’s America, is that Muslims or any other vettedpeople group are welcome, but only as it relates to them becoming American citizens.
Make allowances for Sharia Law? NO. Change our customs to suit Muslim customs? NO. Ban pork from any restaurant? NO. Tell women to dress more modestly because it offends Muslims? NO. Make newspapers and magazines stop publishing things offensive to Muslims? NO. Change anything at all because Muslims don’t like it? NO. I could go on but you get the idea.
My own grandfather came to Ellis Island in 1923, from Scotland, and he came with an accent so thick you could barely understand him, beautiful as it was. But he became an American with Scottish roots, and not a Scottish-America. Makes a big difference where you place the word, doesn’t it? Teddy Roosevelt also had this to say about “hyphenated” Americans:
“THERE IS NO ROOM IN THIS COUNTRY FOR HYPHENATED AMERICANISM. WHEN I REFER TO HYPHENATED AMERICANS, I DO NOT REFER TO NATURALIZED AMERICANS. SOME OF THE VERY BEST AMERICANS I HAVE EVER KNOWN WERE NATURALIZED AMERICANS, AMERICANS BORN ABROAD. BUT A HYPHENATED AMERICAN IS NOT AN AMERICAN AT ALL. THIS IS JUST AS TRUE OF THE MAN WHO PUTS “NATIVE” BEFORE THE HYPHEN AS OF THE MAN WHO PUTS GERMAN OR IRISH OR ENGLISH OR FRENCH BEFORE THE HYPHEN. AMERICANISM IS A MATTER OF THE SPIRIT AND OF THE SOUL. OUR ALLEGIANCE MUST BE PURELY TO THE UNITED STATES. WE MUST UNSPARINGLY CONDEMN ANY MAN WHO HOLDS ANY OTHER ALLEGIANCE.” – TEDDY ROOSEVELT, NEW YORK CITY, 1912
Once you allow for multiculturalism, like England has done, the death of your own culture is sure to follow. Mass immigration has left Britain an “unrecognisable” country that many people would not want to leave to their children and grandchildren, Nigel Farage has said. In one of his strongest attacks on immigration policy, he said the arrival of migrants has some British people feeling that parts of the country are now alien to them.
Teddy Roosevelt has the answer as to how we handle today’s Muslim immigration problem, if only we would heed his words. But I wonder what he would say about having a Muslim in the White House?
Virginia Lamp ,1 of 2 …#1. 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.
Virginia Lamp ,#2 of 2 —T.Roosevelt had it right on Muslim Immigration——->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.
Virginia Lamp , 1 of 2 . #1..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.
Virginia Lamp , 2 of 2 ….When Teddy Roosevelt Banned Muslims from America—->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.
Outrageous.
Virginia Lamp , This post applies to the Churchill Islam post above & it shows you why Obama hates Churchill plus !!! Obamas father was jailed by Britain for being a Communist Organizer & Radical & all the records of time & who /age Obama has said is a ” LIE ” !! Read ##2..—————————–>4 Simple Questions …..
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes’. So how can the official Obama ‘birth certificate’ state he is “African-American” when the term didn’t even exist at that time ?
## 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s birth as August 4, 1961 and Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father.
No big deal, Right? At the time of Obama’s birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in “Kenya, East Africa”.
This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern except the fact that “KENYA” did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet EXIST? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963 it was known as the “British East Africa Protectorate”.
(check it out below)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
3. On the Official Birth Certificate released by the White House the listed place of birth is “Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.
This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “KauiKeolani Children’s Hospital” and “Kapi’olani Maternity Home”, respectively.
The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961
if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
https://www.hawaiipacifichealth.org/kapiolani/about-us/overview/
Why wasn’t any of this discussed in the major media?
4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I’m not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936 – if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn’t been altered to satisfy the author’s goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest
stages of WW II his father wouldn’t have been more than 9 years old. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes?
Very truly yours,
RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB
Attorney at Law
354 Eisenhower Parkway
Livingston, NJ 07039
“A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens.
Impeachment in itself is not justice! We are talking orange stripes jumpsuit & long prison sentences.
Kindra Gripp Godwin….check this out
Very scary if true..wish there was a way to prove it.
PLEASE READ!
This is VERY IMPORTANT!