Texas TEC Bishops Parrot Lies About “Refugees” and the Border

Bishops from all six Texas dioceses of The Episcopal Church (TEC) have written an open letter of the usual lies about the border “to state and national leaders.”  Yes, even the TEC Bishop of Dallas signed this bovine excrement. Some excerpts:

We write to decry the conditions in detention centers at our border because we are Christians, and Jesus is unequivocal. We are to pray without ceasing for everyone involved-refugees, elected officials, and law enforcement-while also advocating for the humane treatment of the human beings crowding our border [They are being treated as humanely as possible given that your Democrat Party has made their jobs as difficult as possible and given that LibChurchers like you, the Democrat Party, and other Leftists have joined the drug cartels in enabling and encouraging the storming of our borders.] as they flee the terror and violence [LIE: Most are country-shopping economic migrants.  Some are predatory criminals. And Guatemala, for example, islessviolent than years ago.]of their home countries.

We call on our state and national leaders to reject fear-based policy-making that targets people who are simply seeking safety, [Telling that LIE again.] and a chance to live and work in peace. The situation at the border is, by all accounts, a crisis. [Oh. Where were you bishops when Trump was calling it a crisis, and Democrats were calling it a made-up crisis and refusing to provide needed funding and beds?]…

We are to care for the children, cherish them, protect them and keep them safe. [So why are you advocating for the continued enabling of rampant child smuggling?  And where is the concern about keeping American children safe from MS13 and other criminals coming across the border?]…

This is not a call for open borders. [Yeah.  Riiight.] This is not saying that immigration isn’t complicated. This is a call for a humane and fair system for moving asylum seekers and refugees through the system as required by law. Seeking asylum is not illegal.[Immigration fraud, including false asylum claims, not showing up for one’s hearing, and fake families, is illegal.] Indeed, the people at our border are following the law when they present themselves to border authorities. [Half truth: Presenting themselves to border authorities when caught crossing illegally does not make the illegal crossing legal.] 

Asylum is “a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a ‘refugee,’ which is ‘a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future ‘on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” 

And economic country-shopping is not on the list.  Nor is the very common practice of ditching one’s asylum hearing allowed either.

By the way, if The Episcopal Church cares oh-so much about “refugees,” why don’t they stop suing real Christians of the Anglican Church in North America and use the funds to assist refugees instead of paying their predatory lawyers?

Is a Democrat Congresswoman and the Roman Catholic Church Engaged in Immigration Fraud?

It is one thing for the Democrat Party and the Roman Catholic Church to oppose and undermine almost every reasonable attempt to secure our borders, although that is bad enough.  But it quite another to solicit immigration fraud. Yet it appears the staff of Democrat Congresswoman Veronica Escobar of El Paso and the local Roman Catholic Diocese are doing just that.

Under the bilateral Migration Protection Protocols, or “Remain in Mexico” policy, anyone returned must be fluent in Spanish because they may have to reside in Mexico up to five years until a U.S. federal judge decides their asylum claim. A Democratic politician's aides reescorting people back to the port are telling officers the Central American individual with them cannot speak Spanish despite their having communicated in it days earlier, CBP officials said.

“What we’re hearing from management is that they’re attempting to return people, and the story was changed in Mexico, where a person who understood Spanish before now doesn’t understand — where a person who didn’t have any health issues before now has health issues," the union representative said.

I’m not a (spit) immigration lawyer, but that sounds like fraud to me.

Most of the attention so far – which is not much yet – is on the actions of Rep. Escobar and her staff.  But the Roman Catholic Church may be involved in border immigration fraud as well.  One case is interesting:

In one incident, an Escobar aide and diocese official walked a male migrant over the bridge in June and asked for him to be admitted into the U.S. because they had found he had "cognitive disabilities." Officers took the boy and turned the case over to the Border Patrol, where an agent found a Constituent Information and Privacy Release Form with the U.S. House of Representatives seal on it inside the 17-year-old's file. Two officials said the paper would have to have been put in his file while he was interviewed in Mexico and was not supposed to have been left there because it would reveal to the Border Patrol that a member of Congress or their staff was meeting with migrants in Mexico.

The boy has since returned to Mexico because the medical condition was not diagnosed by a medical professional but by an aide of the congresswoman, one official said Friday. 

“Management saw that form and was like, ‘What is this?’ and reached out to our International Liaison Unit. And ILU said, ‘Yes, Veronica Escobar and several other politicians are in Mexico trying to defeat the MPP program,'" the union said.

I suspect this is not the last we’ve heard of this matter.

87% of Recent “Refugees” Not Showing Up to Asylum Hearings

I know.  This subject may seem very off-topic.  But it is not; so bear with me.

We hear a lot of propaganda about the poor, poor “refugees” now surging into the U. S.  Here is a basic fact that speaks volumes:

In testimony before Congress this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said that the agency had recently conducted a pilot program with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to test how many recent illegal aliens would show up to their asylum hearings after being released into the U.S.

The results, an ICE official told Congress, were that about 87 percent of illegal aliens, or almost 9-in-10, recently released by DHS into the U.S. did not show up to their asylum hearings. 

So 87% of these recent “refugees” don’t even show up for their hearings.  Most are not legitimate refugees in the first place; they are country shoppers. Otherwise they would seek refuge closer to their home countries, which would be in Mexico for most of them. Then they perpetuate their fraud by not even showing up for their asylum hearings.  That is the respect they show for our laws.

That’s not to mention the child smuggling, including fake families.  Or that Illegals commit a disproportionate amount of crime once in the U. S.

Why am I posting this?  There is a lot of sentimental weaponized compassion that opposes taking the measures necessary to secure our border and to deport at least the worst of the illegals.  We hear sob story after sob story about these poor, poor “refugees” and “undocumented immigrants” and how we should welcome them.

And a lot of this weaponized compassion comes from the organized church, including some in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

We need to call it out for the bull manure it is.  I do not pretend to know the balance between compassion on one hand and self-defense and not enabling criminal behavior on the other.  But we as churches and as a nation need to be realistic about who is entering the U. S. And we need to cut the crap that would have us think measures to defend our home are racist, bigoted, un-Christian, etc.

It is documented: most surging across our border are hardly good people and do not respect our laws.  The church should not enable them to defraud us. The government should defend us and deport them.

European Churches: Vandalized, Defecated On, and Torched "Every Day"

After the awful fire at Notre Dame, some attention is being brought to the epidemic of attacks on churches in France and elsewhere in Europe.  But I’m sure that has nothing to do with all the lovely peaceful Muslim “refugees” that have entered Europe in recent years. . . .

Oh. . .

Who is primarily behind these ongoing and increasing attacks on churches in Europe? The same German report offers a hint: "Crosses are broken, altars smashed, Bibles set on fire, baptismal fonts overturned, and the church doors smeared with Islamic expressions like 'Allahu Akbar.'"

Another German report from November 11, 2017 noted that in the Alps and Bavaria alone, around 200 churches were attacked and many crosses broken: "Police are currently dealing with church desecrations again and again. The perpetrators are often youthful rioters with a migration background." Elsewhere they are described as "young Islamists."

Sometimes, sadly, in European regions with large Muslim populations, there seems to be a concomitant rise in attacks on churches and Christian symbols. Before Christmas 2016, in the North Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany, where more than a million Muslims reside, some 50 public Christian statues(including those of Jesus) were beheaded and crucifixes broken.

In 2016, following the arrival in Germany of another million mostly Muslim migrants, a local newspaper reported that in the town of Dülmen, "'not a day goes by' without attacks on religious statues in the town of less than 50,000 people, and the immediate surrounding area."

And there is more, sadly.  But we are not allowed to talk about such things, are we.

The above begs the question whether the fire at Notre Dame is part of this pattern of attacks on churches.  I say not for one reason – no Islamist group has claimed to have perpetrated this.  However, if a clear and plausible cause of the fire does not come out soon, that would not be a good indication.

On a much happier note, the rose windows have survived.  As awful as the fire was, I am surprised the damage to the cathedral and its treasures is not much worse.

A church-aided Syrian “refugee,” murder, and an object lesson for ACNA

Out of Vancouver comes a heart-rending and perhaps enraging story.  The oh-so progressive and inclusive St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church to their credit (or discredit) contributed not a little money to import a lovely refugee family.  But that did not have a happy ending:

The 30K/ 30Day project on Bowen Island through St. Andrews- Wesley set out to raise $30,000 to bring Syrian refugee families to Vancouver. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. The money they raised paid for Ali’s brother and his family to come to Canada. 

And an extra $15,000 was raised to bring Ibrahim Ali and another brother.

“It would mean they could have a family reunion along with family that is in Burnaby,” was the pitch.

At 1 in the morning, last summer, the body of 13-year-old Marrisa Shen was found in Burnaby’s Central Park. The last sight of her was on the security camera of a Tim Horton’s. After over a year of searching, as her photo in a sailor suit looked out from the TV news, posters and flyers, after hundreds of interviews and tips, the case broke wide open.

St. Andrews- Wesley’s gift to Canada was arrested for her murder. That extra $15,000 had paid for a little girl’s life.

Read more here.  My point in bringing this up is not to address the politics of refugees and immigration, but to present an object lesson the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) must consider.  I do not think ACNA has any churches as sold out to the social justice gospel as St. Andrew’s-Wesley United Church.  But there are a few parishes, organizations, and at least a diocese or two in ACNA that are very committed to refugee and immigrant ministry.

Now certainly we should minister to refugees who are refugees indeed and to other immigrants.  But we should not enable wrong behavior such as illegal immigration, deceptive refugee claims, or otherwise taking wrongful advantage of host countries or even preying on them.  If that seems harsh, remember that St. Paul wrote that assistance for widows should go to those who “are widows indeed” and that assistance to the poor should not go to those who are able-bodied but unwilling to work.  Part of his reasoning was to avoid enabling sinful behaviors.

Likewise, we should not enable the sinful conduct of illegals and of faux refugees.  But I fear some ACNA parishes and organizations are not being as careful as they should be.  Someday the result could be as awful as in Vancouver.  And then ACNA would be found to have enabled awful crime.  ACNA could even be found with blood on its hands.

I do not have easy answers to prevent this.  But perhaps the College of Bishops could give firmly worded guidelines and instructions in line with St. Paul’s above instructions about church charity. Some in ACNA may still chose to disregard wise guidelines, but that would then be on them, not on ACNA as a whole.  And any wise steps to avoid enabling can only do good.

But for now, the attitude of much of ACNA towards immigrants and refugees seems not that much different that that of St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church.  If that continues, it will only be a matter of time before a similar awful result.

So World Relief and an ACNA Bishop Are “Deeply Concerned”

World Relief continues its increasingly liberal political ways by taking out a full-page ad in the Washington Post expressing deep, deep concern about Trump pulling back on the import of those lovely refugees until it can be determined how to better vet them to make sure they really are all that lovely.  Trump is so mean!

Now on its face, the open letter is not that objectionable.  Yes, we should be concerned about genuine refugees.  Certainly, we should pray for God to grant our leaders wisdom.

So I am not going to assume motives behind this letter and those who signed it.  But I will vent a bit on what this open letter smells like.  World Relief and Co are “deeply concerned”?  Well, I’m going to express my deep, deep concern, too.

And what this letter smells like is a passive-aggressive attack on Trump’s attempts to protect us.  That “concerned” line at the beginning is a tip-off.  If a modern evangelical leader ever tells you he is “concerned” about you, watch your back!  I certainly can remember being fed that line while I was being stabbed in the back one unhappy occasion.  I was naïve back then.  Experiences with certain evangelical churchly bureaucrats make me slightly cynical now.  Yes, I admit it.

Oh, but World Relief and company are not just “concerned,” they are “deeply concerned.”  Heck, you better pray that getting stabbed in the back is all that happens.

The whole letter smells like weasel words to indulge in political attack while retaining the pretense that they aren’t getting involved in partisan politics at all.  They are just expressing Christian “concern.”

Where was all this concern when terrorists and rapeugees were invading and attacking Europe and beginning to invade and attack us with the help of Obama?

So excuse me if this cynic is not buying World Relief’s “concern” now.  It smells like the usual enabling of invaders who would make us less safe, not to mention less American – liberal enabling dressed up in polyester leisure suits or whatever evangelical leaders wear now.  (They never did know how to dress.)

Maybe it would be better to stuff all the posturing concern, complete with full page ads in the Washington Post, and stick to being a supposedly Christian relief agency.  What a novel idea!  Surely that is a better use of donations . . . and less likely to drive donors away.  And, yes, I would not be shocked at all if donations to World Relief now decrease.

But I can be dreadfully practical and downright hard-hearted about such things.  It seems to be really compassionate, you have to posture in full page ads.  I admit I lack such compassion.

As for ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch, who signed this with “Anglican Church in North America” under his name, I will be slightly more gracious and assume the best of motives.  He certainly does have a record of reaching out to refugees and deserves said assumption.  But his signature as a bishop of ACNA is nonetheless a highly questionable use of his position.

Further, it takes us a step closer to open division in ACNA over immigration and refugees, a danger of which I have already warned.

ACNA at Risk Over Immigration

Those who have long followed this blog know how well disposed I am towards the Anglican Church in North America.  With rejoicing, I attended the Assembly at which ACNA was born back in June 2009.  I also supported the Reformed Episcopal Church joining ACNA.

So this post should be taken as an alarm call rather than an attack.  And I am alarmed that ACNA is at risk of getting out of balanced and divided over issues of immigration and refugees.  Veering beyond compassion and the Gospel into divisive politics is a particular danger at the moment.

Granted, Archbishop Foley Beach’s statement over the weekend is timely, helpful and balanced, particularly where he states:

In our province we also have lawmakers who face a different, but related set of challenging moral issues.  As public servants, they are called to carefully discern how best to respond to the global humanitarian need while also maintaining the appropriate role of government in protecting its citizens. There are no easy answers to how our nations should balance these priorities, and our leaders need your prayers.

I find needful his acknowledgement that government has an important role in protecting its citizens.  And saying “there are no easy answers” is certainly a succinct way of saying there are no easy political answers.

But, earlier, he understandably leaves something out in the statement in praising the Anglican Immigrant Initiative:

They have taken the lead in caring for those in our communities who are refugees and immigrants, showing the love of Christ to the most vulnerable.

This week, I encourage you to follow their example, and make a special effort to reach out to refugees and immigrants in your local community. 

Does that reaching out include their emphasis on legal aid to immigrants? The Anglican Immigrant Initiative site places much emphasis on legal aid.  Does that legal aid serve to make it more difficult to deport illegals who should not be here in the first place?  Is that an appropriate role for the church? Again, if Abp. Foley wishes to keep his counsel on this sensitive area private, that is understandable.

Back to the bigger picture, ACNA needs to tread carefully.  Many of us in ACNA fled denominations that had become the Democrat Party at prayer, that had habitually presumed to push Liberal/Left political policies in the name of Jesus and of his church, thereby abusing the Holy Name as well as those many in the pews who disagreed. I know I was long ago fed up with that sort of thing and am not at all of a mind ever to put up with it again.  If ACNA appears likewise to follow the primrose path of espousing liberal political policies, especially on such a volatile issue as immigration, there may be an explosion from the rank and file and division within the church.

And ACNA is perilously close to doing so.  Already, its relief arm, the Anglican Relief and Development Fund (ARDF), has partnered with World Relief on immigration and refugees.  And World Relief is not shy about opposing President Trump’s policies in this area.  We already have ACNA clergy (Thankfully not any bishops that I’ve noticed.) crusading on immigration and refugees with little regard to church unity.  This post over at The Old Jamestown Church and a current perusal of the public ACNA Facebook page give a flavor of that and resulting unhappiness.

I may revisit this topic.  But I will cut this post short in part because I hesitate to speculate what could ignite this situation into more widespread and open division.  But it is safe to say ACNA and its bishops must tread carefully.

Note: I am having trouble with blogger formatting again.  My apologies for any annoyance.

Obama Imports More Terrorists

Obama seems determined to endanger us as much as possible before January 20^th.

In the first 84 days of the 2017 fiscal year (October 1, 2016 - December 23, 2016), the Obama administration has accepted 25,584 refugees into the United States, according to data provided by the State Department.  Per Breitbart, compared to the same period in FY2016, that represents an 86% increase year-over-year.

And, yes…

…per data from the U.S. State Department, the overwhelming majority of refugees admitted into the U.S. over the past couple of months are coming from Syria, Iraq and Somalia...

Whom we know are all such lovely people.

At best, this is inexcusable recklessness that endangers American lives and will tax communities that much more with dangerous invaders.   Yes, that is what too many of them are.

But then the safety and freedom of American citizens has always been rather low on Obama’s list of priorities.

Refugee of the Day

This commences a series that will focus on the contribution those wonderful Middle Eastern Muslim refugees make to society.  Thanks Obama and Merkel for your wisdom in letting them right on in!

Our first Refugee of the Day is Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24.  He already appreciates that quintessential American institution of the shopping mall so much that has been seeking to liven up the American mall experience by bombing the Houston Galleria.  What a creative prankster!

He also pledged his loyalty to that fun-loving gang, ISIS.

Unfortunately, his effort was stopped by law enforcement fuddy-duddies.

His background?

The Houston terror suspect is a Palestinian born in Iraq, but has lived among us since November 2, 2009, when he entered the United States as a refugee.

And now he’s become the Refugee of the Day.  Way to go Omar! . . . Faraj! . . . Saeed Al oh hell!  Just way to go!

Merkel and Co. Should Have Known They Were Importing Taharrush

The world is, with difficulty, digesting the fact that hundreds of Middle Eastern “refugees” engaged in coordinated gang sex assaults in Cologne and elsewhere in Europe on New Years Eve.  And the more the truth is investigated, instead of covered up as some authorities did at first, the worse the known truth gets.

Shocking, yes.  But it really should not have been a shock to Merkel and other European leaders who imported these faux refugees and inflicted them on their people.  As Richard Fernandez points out, it was well known that the Middle East has a rape problem.

Even before the NYT article was published, academic researchers were already writing about a malignant practice called taharrush, which has become the term for mass sexual harassment. . . .

Whatever the name of this dark rite there was little doubt, as foreshadowed by the attack on Lara Logan Tahrir Square, that something bad was afoot. Yet the warnings  sounded in Egypt were  ignored in the West even after a movie was made out of it.

During the 2006 Eid el-Fitr holiday, groups of young men who turned away from a sold out movie at a cinema in the downtown area went on a mass sexual harassment spree, attacking women and girls (Ilahi 2008). What made this event significant is the fact that it was caught on video by mobile phones and was widely broadcasted via YouTube by prominent Egyptian bloggers, such as Wael Abbas and Malek X ...

In December 2010, the popular movie 678 was released, which was the first feature film produced in Egypt that focused on taḥarrush as a problem for women in public spaces.

And yet Obama and Hillary among other Democrats are following the European foolishness and importing those wonderful refugees.  Heck, Obama even had one as his guest at the State of the Union last night.  Hopefully they vetted him enough to make sure he wouldn’t go on a sexual harassment spree during the speech.

I guess American heroes are less worthy of Obama’s invitation.

But, again, multiculturalism is dangerous foolishness.  There are cultures we should not import en masse.  And Middle Eastern Muslim cultures, prone to rape and terror, sure as heck are among them.  Your man and woman on the street – especially certain unfortunate women – know this.

Obama and Merkel should have known.

Obama let Jihadi Bride Malik right on in even though she openly supported terrorism.

Obama wants us to trust him on vetting those thousands of lovely Muslim “refugees” he’s letting in.  Yet his administration could not be bothered with looking at the social media postings of the Jihadi Bride of San Bernardino infamy, Tashfeen Malik.  Big omission that:

Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.

But it gets worse.  Not looking at her social media postings was part of Obama Administration policy:

Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said.

“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News.

One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen’s account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.

And Ed Morrissey points to one Janet Napolitano, Obama’s first DHS Secretary as the one who put this policy in place.

But now the Obama Administration is making noises about changing this policy.  I would say better late than never.  But it’s not better for those murdered by Malik and fiancé in San Bernardino.

And, again, we are supposed to trust this administration in vetting Muslim “refugees”?

Terrorists Already Have Gotten into the U. S. as “Refugees”

Christians and people of good will want to be hospitable, especially to those fleeing bad situations.  So it should not surprise that many of the same well meaning people are allowing those good instincts to overwhelm common sense and oppose efforts to stop or severely restrict bringing Middle Eastern “refugees” into the U. S.  I see this myself in a number of personal friends of mine.  They are good people.  But on this subject, they are mistaken.

I’ve already stated that the very nature of Islam makes allowing the mass migration of Muslims pretty much a death wish.  But, leaving that aside for now, it has become a meme that the U. S. screens refugees so closely that we should not be concerned and let those that pass screening right on in.

But it is already evident that whatever screens we are using, they are not working with Muslim refugees.  Kentucky knows that well:

Of the 31 states that have declared their opposition to taking in Syrian refugees, one state, Kentucky, has a specific reason to be wary of the background check process: previously two Iraqi refugees who settled in Bowling Green turned out to be al Qaeda-linked terrorists with the blood of American soldiers on their hands, an ABC News investigation found. Both pleaded guilty to terror-connected charges after trying to acquire heavy weapons while in America’s heartland.

The 2013 ABC News investigation also revealed that several dozen other suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some who were believed to have targeted U.S. troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the U.S. as Iraq and Afghanistan War refugees, among the tens of thousands of innocent immigrants.

The Obama administration insists now that Syrian refugees are subjected to intense vetting before they’re allowed to settle in the U.S. and that a vast majority of the millions of refugees the U.S. has resettled since the 1970s are normal, peaceful people, but the program has had serious security problems before. In 2009, a flaw in background screening of Iraqi refugees allowed the two al Qaeda-linked terrorists to settle in Bowling Green and led to a temporary suspension of the refugee program, officials told ABC News in a 2013 investigation.

More recently, refugees from Bosnia and Somalia have been caught being involved with Islamic terrorist groups as well.

And now we are supposed to let in tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” without letting in terrorists or future terrorists?  Why should we trust our screens when they have already failed against lesser numbers?

Should Christians desire to aid refugees who are refugees indeed?  Of course.  But aiding them and allowing masses of them to come to the U. S. even if they have problematic backgrounds (And, again, Middle Eastern Islam is a problematic background if there ever was one.) are two different things.

And I have not mentioned that the behavior of most of the “refugees” is that of economic opportunists rather than that of genuine refugees.  Why must so many of them go to countries with sweet welfare benefits, hmmmm?

I believe in prison ministry and have contributed to it and even been involved in it on occasion.  And many prisoners have good hearts and/or changed hearts.  But I have no plans to let a bunch of prisoners I don’t know move into my house.  Just no.  Sorry. 

I guess I’m xenophobic that way.

Why Mass Muslim Immigration to the West Must Be Stopped, Illustrated

Those who advocate for cramming yet more Muslim immigrants and “refugees” down the throats of the U. S. and of European countries would have us think the overwhelming majority of immigrant Muslims are good people.

Oh really?  Such a sentiment, of course, begs the question of whether bringing in all those wonderful Muslims is worth letting in a few hundred more jihadis.  But I seriously doubt whether even a majority of Muslims invading immigrating to the West are decent people.  Yes, I said it.  The following video illustrates why I say it.

At a match in Turkey, there was a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris attacks.  That may be seen when the players and referees gather around the circle.

Or at least there was supposed to be a moment of silence.  Jeers and chants of “Allahu Akbar” rang through the stadium, and not just from a few yahoos.  Watch it for yourself.

Now this is in Turkey, one of those “moderate” Muslim countries.  Turkey even has a history of secularism, at least until recent years.  Some of the insane even want to bring Turkey into the EU.  Yet a large number of those who went to this soccer match are such cretins that they loudly jeer and even shout over a moment of silence of victims of Islamic terror.

Now most of those doing the shouting would not appear on a terror watch list.  If they tried to immigrate to the West there would be no indications they are sympathetic to Islamist terrorism.  Yet they clearly are.  At the very least, they do not share Western standards of decency.

It may be shocking, but it should not surprise.  Islam contains the seeds of these attitudes.  Islam from the very beginning is a religion which blesses killing and subjugating non-Muslims.  That is exactly how Islam spread in the first place.  Early Christianity spread in the face of being killed.  Early Islam spread by killing.  (Not so early Islam as well.)  This is not disputable.  Inconvenient as it may be, it is basic history.

Most American Muslims may have completely outgrown that history and those attitudes.  But non-Western Muslims?  Not so much.  Sure, some have.  Maybe, perhaps, barely (though I doubt it), most. 

But how the heck are we to keep out the bad Muslims while letting in tens of thousands of the more enlightened Muslims?  Do we have a brain scan which detects jihadi and anti-Western attitudes?  Again, most of those who jeered in that stadium would be welcome to travel or even immigrate to the West.

Obama, Hillary, yes, Jeb!, too, Merkel etc. are wrong, dead wrong, to inflict hoards of non-Western Muslim “refugees” on the West.  Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were wrong, dead wrong, to import Muslims to shore up the Labour Party.  And the victims of the Paris attacks are only part of the dead. 

We need to – we must – stop fooling ourselves.  Non-Western Muslims as a whole are not compatible with Western values and freedom.  The vile nature of Islam ensures that.  As a whole, they should be kept out.

But they won’t be kept out.  I intend to comment on some of the possible consequences before week’s end.

U. S. Roman Catholic Bishops: Bring In the Wolves

One of the duties of a bishop is to protect the flock of Christ’s church from wolves of various sorts.  Instead, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling on the Federal Government to bring those wolves right on in!

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling for the U.S. to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees this year alone.

The Conference shows no sign of knowing or caring that the Islamic State said last February that it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. Or that an Islamic State operative recently boasted that, among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had entered Europe. Or that the Lebanese education minister said there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country.

Or that 80% of the migrants who claim to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t actually from Syria at all…

And a lot of them aren’t refugees either but opportunists looking for a sweet welfare state to land in.  So the U. S. Popish bishops think we should let the looters and no telling how many jihadis in to prey on us.

And don’t say the U. S. can sort out the good genuine refugees from the bad eggs.  That is not possible with 100,000 a year even if the Obama Administration were so inclined, which it isn’t.

And if you think the bishops surely want to focus on recuing Christian victims of Islamic persecution, think again.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is, as Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch points out, “NOT advocating to save the persecuted Christians of Syria through this program.” Instead, bishops such as Robert McManus, Kevin Farrell, Jaime Soto, and others are moving to silence those who speak about the Muslim persecution of Christians, and about the Islamic doctrines mandating warfare against and subjugation of Christians.

Instead, the bishops want to bring in those Muslims.  Ask the UK how well that has worked.

Not that everyone in the UK has learned their lesson.  Church of England bishops are calling for more “refugees” to be brought to the shores of Albion as well, although their call is not quite as irresponsible as that of U. S. Popish bishops.

But it is this sort of thing that drove me from mainline Protestantism decades ago as well as repelling me from Popery.  A church full of “bishops” who side with wolves instead of with Christ’s flock . . . well, I’ll let readers guess the rest of that sentence.