View Full Version : The Islamist Who Served on the Electoral College
The Islamist Who Served on the Electoral College
Where might Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui turn up next?
July 31, 2009 - by David J. Rusin
......Jafar “Jeff” Siddiqui of Lynnwood, Washington, became the first known Islamist to cast an electoral vote.
.....has a long record of airing his own extreme views in local papers and the American Muslim magazine, a truth that was noted by an alert blog but predictably ignored by the mainstream press at the time of his appointment. As detailed below,....
.....textbook “lawful” Islamist who dreams of imposing at least one element of Sharia on the West: curbing speech that is critical of Islam.
.....paints opponents of radical Islam as Nazis, portrays America as oppressive, denies the religious rationale of Muslim terrorists, and insists that Muslims are victims even when they take part in violent aggression.
Read the whole article here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-islamist-who-served-on-the-electoral-college/
Warrior-Mentor
08-06-2009, 10:36
This turns things on its head...Nazis and radical islamists both hate Jews and work for their extermination.
This is best epitomized by the coordinated efforts of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, and Adolf Hitler:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
At the Nuremberg Trials, Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny (subsequently executed as a war criminal) testified:
The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan.
... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz.
History Channel Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtNAcCXYK6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxCzwz7zTco
Dozer523
08-06-2009, 11:36
I found this on the Electorial College.
************************************************** **********
The U.S. Constitution sets forth only one requirement for serving as an elector. In Article II, Section 1, it provides that “no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” No clear definition exists for the meaning of “office of trust or profit,” but it is generally taken to mean that members of the Cabinet or other high-ranking executive branch members cannot serve as electors. (However, in the election of 1876, an elector from Oregon was challenged on the grounds that he was a postmaster.) States have developed several different procedures for selecting electors. The most prominent method is the state party convention. Currently, roughly two-thirds of the states nominate electors at their state party conventions. In the other third, the state party’s central committee makes the selection or chooses another way of determining its electors.
The persons chosen at this stage are not yet actual electors. They must be formally appointed. All state legislatures have by law conferred upon the citizens of the state the right to choose electors in the November election. Most states have adopted the winner-take-all system. With this method, the electors assigned to the candidate who won most of the vote in their state are all represented in the electoral college. Maine and Nebraska, however, employ the district system. Under this system, two electors are awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote, and the remaining electors are awarded to the popular vote winner in each of the state’s congressional districts.
Only a handful of states print the names of candidates for elector on the ballot. In the vast majority of states, when the voter votes for a party’s candidates for president and vice president, the voter is simply assumed to have voted for the party’s candidates for elector.
************************************************** ************
But, the EC is really pretty much an outdated relic of a time before efficient communication. In the olden, olden, olden days the only way to send information was via mail. The EC was probably emplaced as a "Well, it's going by carriage anyway. You might as well go along and make sure it actually get there."
As for this "......Jafar “Jeff” Siddiqui of Lynnwood, Washington, became the first known Islamist to cast an electoral vote." as long as he's a citizen and abides by the law. . . big whoop. I'm from Eastern Washington (where it doesn't rain all the time) we just shake our heads at all the soggy thinkin' from the wet side!
Warrior-Mentor
08-06-2009, 11:43
Ask yourself, "What would the reaction have been if a political party had nominated a member of the KKK to be a member of the electoral college?"
Would it have changed the outcome of the election? Of course not.
Would this have been acceptable? That's a different answer...
Dozer523:
As for this "......Jafar “Jeff” Siddiqui of Lynnwood, Washington, became the first known Islamist to cast an electoral vote." as long as he's a citizen and abides by the law. . . big whoop. I'm from Eastern Washington (where it doesn't rain all the time) we just shake our heads at all the soggy thinkin' from the wet side!
To me the issue isn't so much that he is Muslim but his documented radical and racist views.
**He frequently uses the term "Nazi" to describe anyone who opposes Islam (negating the Mufti's involvement and urging to the Nazi's to commit complete Jewish genocide).
**He has a very "narrow view" of the First Amendent and IMO a very one-sided view as long as it benefits Islam and the agenda of furthering it throughout the world.
**He won't speak out against jihad but will tapdance around it giving politically correct versions of the word that is consistantly forcefed down the throats of ignorant (NOT STUPID) people who would rather wear their blinders and earplugs as they lemming their way through life (because it is perfectly OK to lie to infidels and deceive them to further islam).
**His view that muslims are "victims"(he whines about this in his articles about how misunderstood and discriminated against they are) makes my gag reflex go into overdrive....the only muslims I see as victims are the one's that are slaughtered by their own religious kind for some "perceived" infraction. Especially when I consistently see the atrocities commited against other religions because they are NOT muslim.
Last paragraph of the article:
Why did an Islamist sit on the Electoral College? For the same reasons that Islamists have achieved a foothold in countless American institutions: the press ignores their radicalism, federal agents legitimize them as representatives of the Muslim community, and the political establishment embraces them with open arms. In short, though he maintains that the media and the government conspire to promote hatred of Islam, the case of Jeff Siddiqui demonstrates how they all too often promote Islamists just like him.
Local elector's mission is clear
HeraldNet, 7 Dec 2008
Members of the Electoral College will gather in state capitols around the nation in a few days to place a constitutional period at the end of the presidential election story.
While people in Washington are still suing in an attempt to prove Barack Obama is not legally qualified for the office, they won't stop him from winning this election Dec. 15.
By law, electors in this state and 47 others -- Nebraska and Maine are the exceptions -- must choose the person who received the most votes in their state.
That doesn't bother Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui of Lynnwood, one of the 11 electors casting ballots in Washington.
"I am feeling extremely proud," he told me this week.
And relieved.
Siddiqui is a Muslim who hopes a regime change in the White House will start to bring an end to a dark period of discrimination and persecution of those who share his faith.
He is, I found, an elector with a mission.
"My driving motivation was to help this country become more aware of what this government is doing to Muslims," he said.
Born in Pakistan in 1952, he came to Seattle in 1975 to work on a master's degree in aeronautics, then switched subjects and earned a master's in industrial engineering instead.
In 1985, he started selling real estate and became an American citizen in 1986.
"The first day I could apply I did," he said.
He's lived in Snohomish County for 19 years, voting regularly, contributing to Democrats and Republicans, never running for office and, until this year, never engaging in partisan politics.
But inspired by Obama and angered by the Bush administration, Siddiqui went to the Democratic caucuses in February. One meeting led to another and in May he was selected to cast the Electoral College vote for the 1st Congressional District.
"I promised if I was chosen I would use every opportunity I have to bring up persecution of Muslims in this country. I strongly believe the people who chose me were making a statement that they wanted that message out," he said.
He sharply criticized the Bush administration and called out Democrats -- Sen. Maria Cantwell and Rep. Rick Larsen, among others -- for not objecting loudly and often enough to the actions of the president and his cabinet members.
Siddiqui said he's not clinging to his anger and believes Obama will be able to soothe the wounds of Muslims.
"Ultimately, we all have to have hope," he said.
"If I want to help bring this country to a better place, I cannot give up, we cannot give up. If we give up, the ones who win are the bigots," he said.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20081207/NEWS01/712079873/-1/RSS02
Dozer523
08-07-2009, 12:21
[B]Born in Pakistan in 1952, he came to Seattle in 1975 to work on a master's degree in aeronautics, then switched subjects and earned a master's in industrial engineering instead.
In 1985, he started selling real estate and became an American citizen in 1986.
Oh well, he's a Realtor. . . :p
craigepo
08-07-2009, 12:54
"But, the EC is really pretty much an outdated relic of a time before efficient communication. In the olden, olden, olden days the only way to send information was via mail. The EC was probably emplaced as a "Well, it's going by carriage anyway. You might as well go along and make sure it actually get there."
Actually, it could be argued that the electoral college is as necessay today as ever in preventing vote fraud. Example, say you have a corrupt union boss in chicago, who can swing the city of Chicago by unlawful means. (hoffa-kennedy?) With the electoral college, that boss might swing Illinois' EC votes by swinging its popular vote, but the effect is minimized. Stated differently, the electoral college localizes, minimizes and segregates vote fraud, as opposed to a pure popular vote.(The term "ACORN" comes to mind).
Dozer523:
To me the issue isn't so much that he is Muslim but his documented radical and racist views.
**He frequently uses the term "Nazi" to describe anyone who opposes Islam (negating the Mufti's involvement and urging to the Nazi's to commit complete Jewish genocide).
**He has a very "narrow view" of the First Amendent and IMO a very one-sided view as long as it benefits Islam and the agenda of furthering it throughout the world.
**He won't speak out against jihad but will tapdance around it giving politically correct versions of the word that is consistantly forcefed down the throats of ignorant (NOT STUPID) people who would rather wear their blinders and earplugs as they lemming their way through life (because it is perfectly OK to lie to infidels and deceive them to further islam).
**His view that muslims are "victims"(he whines about this in his articles about how misunderstood and discriminated against they are) makes my gag reflex go into overdrive....the only muslims I see as victims are the one's that are slaughtered by their own religious kind for some "perceived" infraction. Especially when I consistently see the atrocities commited against other religions because they are NOT muslim.
Last paragraph of the article:
While I can understand your distaste at the things this man has said, he still has the right to say them. As long as he is an American Citizen in good standing, he has the right to hold the position he holds.
Have we not all felt anger at the fact that the Liberals are casting those who question the POTUS on his health care plan, as fools for the insurance companies? Have we all not felt anger about the White House asking for neighbors to snitch on neighbors, when "inaccuracies" about the POTUS health care system are heard?
These are both freedom of speech issues, as far as I am concerned. If no one is breaking the law, we need to view them in the same light, IMHO.
I may find someone burning the flag of the United States as abhorent, but as long as it is protected under the First Ammendment, I will defend, with my life if necessary, their right to do so. I can not in good conscience only defend the views to which I hold similar thoughts. That is not what this nation was based upon.
Dozer523
08-07-2009, 15:47
Ask yourself, "What would the reaction have been if a political party had nominated a member of the KKK to be a member of the electoral college?"
Would it have changed the outcome of the election? Of course not.
Would this have been acceptable? That's a different answer... There was time in this country when the KKK was a very powerful political force. Happily, that went away.
I'm not sure that comparing Muslims to the KKK is the way we ought to go here. It has to be perfectly acceptable that he is a Muslim. It is totally unacceptable if he has engaged in anything illegal or belongs to organizations that advocate illegal activities. But he can't be denied an elector position, just because he says stuff we don't like.
Dozer523
08-07-2009, 16:04
Actually it could be argued that the electoral college is as necessay today as ever in preventing vote fraud. Example, say you have a corrupt union boss in chicago, who can swing the city of Chicago by unlawful means. (hoffa-kennedy?) With the electoral college, that boss might swing Illinois' EC votes by swinging its popular vote, but the effect is minimized. Stated differently, the electoral college localizes, minimizes and segregates vote fraud, as opposed to a pure popular vote.(The term "ACORN" comes to mind).
Your Honor, I'd be interested to read an expansion of this arguement.
First, a little more detail of the illegal means used by Kennedy and Hoffa.
Second, I don't understand how swinging the popular vote could swing the EC vote. Aren't the EC votes supposed to reflect the popular votes? So how is influencing the popular vote manipulating the electorial Collge vote?(Occassionally, there are instances of the opposite. When an Elector goes their own way -- that's always interesting because there is nothing in the rules that require the electors to vote in sync with the popular, will of the majority, vote ).
And thirdly I don't understand your "stated differently" statement.
Warrior-Mentor
08-07-2009, 16:07
There was time in this country when the KKK was a very powerful political force. Happily, that went away.
I'm not sure that comparing Muslims to the KKK is the way we ought to go here. It has to be perfectly acceptable that he is a Muslim. It is totally unacceptable if he has engaged in anything illegal or belongs to organizations that advocate illegal activities. But he can't be denied an elector position, just because he says stuff we don't like.
First, we need to read the Smith Act:
____________________________
U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2385
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or
teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or
becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
____________________________
Then, we need to read the requirements unders islamic law...Reliance of the Traveller is as credible as it gets ...
This could get into a VERY long answer, but let's just start with Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, page 2 section a1.1 "There is no disagreement among the scholars of the muslims that the source of legal rulings for all the acts of those who are morally responsible is allah most glorious."
Now look at he US Constitution, Article VI:
...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
SO what is the supreme law of the land in the United States - the US Constitution? or Sharia?
Bottomline, the more you read, sooner or later you'll realize that your two statements above are irreconciable.
I have to go now, but can engage more later...
Reading the Smith Act - there are many on this forum - me included - who have made statements which would fall under one of the following provisions of the Act:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or
teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or
becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -
This - to me - is one scarily worded document :eek: and has me worried that something like this could ever get through Congress.
It appears that Pogo was correct when he said, "We have met the enemy...and he is us." :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-07-2009, 17:45
Reading the Smith Act - there are many on this forum - me included - who have made statements which would fall under one of the following provisions of the Act:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or
becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -
This - to me - is one scarily worded document :eek: and has me worried that something like this could ever get through Congress.
It appears that Pogo was correct when he said, "We have met the enemy...and he is us." :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I hope you just missed the key recurring phrase.
I hope you just missed the key recurring phrase.
I did not - I only hope you just missed the key idea that in citing someone like Thomas Jefferson in reference to a perceived need to change the direction of any level of our governments, you are wading into a potential morass created by the wording and acceptance of this Act.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
- Ths. Jefferson
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I did not - I only hope you just missed the key idea that in citing someone like Thomas Jefferson in reference to a perceived need to change the direction of any level of our governments, you are wading into a potential morass created by the wording and acceptance of this Act.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
- Ths. Jefferson
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Granting that Jefferson meant it for internal revolution and reconstruction of popular government once a generation (He also proposed that the debt of the previous generation could not be held to the new: very easy to see why T.J. and Hamilton never saw eye to eye), the wording of it is often used to aptly describe external tyrants that work against our liberty such as Saddam Hussein & co. And Jefferson was more of a revolutionary than the tinpot dictators in Islamic states ever shall be.
MOO, there's a world of difference between poetic political thought and chanting "Death to America" in the streets, common practice for radical Islamic Muslims in say, Iran (which this elector no doubt views as a near-ideal political system). One can mean several things; the other is very direct.
But I absolutely get your point :)
-Alex
Warrior-Mentor
08-08-2009, 07:54
Richard - context is important.
On the cover of today's Washington Post is the Old Guard saluting the flag draped coffin of Cpl Benjamin Kopp,
a 21 year old Ranger from Minnesota, who died from injuries sustained in combat with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I offer that his blood has refreshed the "Tree of Liberty."
Most would prefer it was the blood of tyrants....and along side that photo is the story about the death of Baitullah Mesud.
As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
There is evil in this world.
I thank God that men like Cpl Kopp are willing to do something about it.
Richard - context is important.
On the cover of today's Washington Post is the Old Guard saluting the flag draped coffin of Cpl Benjamin Kopp,
a 21 year old Ranger from Minnesota, who died from injuries sustained in combat with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I offer that his blood has refreshed the "Tree of Liberty."
Most would prefer it was the blood of tyrants....and along side that photo is the story about the death of Baitullah Mesud.
As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."
There is evil in this world.
I thank God that men like Cpl Kopp are willing to do something about it.
I agree - and there are evil people in the world and context is important - and context was so important to the drafters of the US Constitution that they included a written Bill of Rights to codify certain ideas before the Constitution was even ratified so they should not be taken out of context by future lawmakers - even when they have tried to do so.
IMO there are far too many nefariously opportunistic and weak-willed politicos in Congress (the lawmakers) and government (the law enforcers) who - I fear - could and would use the Smith Act as written and if perceived to be threatened - to support legislature or a campaign against righfully indignant citizens or groups. As we have seen on a number of occasions in the past, people and government will often do the unthinkable when they are scared or in fear of losing control.
If you belong to a TEA Party group, e.g. - most of which are admittedly pretty innocuous, but there are some who are quite openly advocating for some extremely aggressive changes in government and policy - could you become a prosecutable threat under the Smith Act as it is written?
What if someone in a group you belonged to, say, took your words - spoken, perhaps, in a moment of anger and heated debate - to heart and cited them as the reason they sought to take action by targeting a government official?
Don't we - as a group and as espoused by our nation's founders - believe in an inherent right to remove - by force, if necessary - a tyrannical government - even our own? Are we now prosecutable for teaching that to our citizens?
I am not saying it would happen - my fear is that, like many who have similar worries over an impending use of martial law, it could - and such an Act, as well intentioned as it may have been in the making, would make it far easier.
MOO and YMMV
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-08-2009, 09:43
Read WILLFUL BLINDNESS by Andrew McCarthy. See how and why the Blink Sheik was prosecuted using the Sedition Act. We need this legislation. An attempt to remove it at this point would be an act of dhimmitude.
Read WILLFUL BLINDNESS by Andrew McCarthy. See how and why the Blink Sheik was prosecuted using the Sedition Act. We need this legislation. An attempt to remove it at this point would be an act of dhimmitude.
I'm not saying remove it - my point is we need to keep a close eye on it and our legislators to ensure it's not being misused. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
08-08-2009, 16:13
Fair enough. But that goes without saying for anything government does...especially when the checks and balances aren't there through party rivalry...
...especially when the checks and balances aren't there through party rivalry...
And more so during confusing or uncertain times. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
AFChic:
Have we not all felt anger at the fact that the Liberals are casting those who question the POTUS on his health care plan, as fools for the insurance companies? Have we all not felt anger about the White House asking for neighbors to snitch on neighbors, when "inaccuracies" about the POTUS health care system are heard?
I understand your point. However, the aim of Muslims when they move to any country is NOT to live in peace and harmony with the system that is in place in their host country but to live in peace and harmony according to their system.
WM and SF-TX (along with several others) have backed up the argument in countless postings regarding how "creeping sharia" has become a reality in Europe. Sure, we can play the game of "hey everyone is entitled to their First Amendment rights" and rolling over with that, we will be in the same position as Europe and we are (IMO) are heading down that highway to hell very quickly. I have read some of this guys editorials and he has a persecution complex and will use to that to rally "the troops". My view has always been the same..."if you don't like our country then you are more than welcome to move your happy ass back to your former homeland! I am tired of hearing that "oh I came here for a better life" and then demand change and demand that people roll over to accommodate the way things were in "your country". If things were so wonderful in your country, then you should have stayed there". And yes, I have said that to a few foreigners that sat and complained about what a "shitty" country we have!! I worked with a a lot of muslims in NYC and had to listen to it day in and day out and I told them the same thing, day in and day out. But let me tell you, when 9/11 happened, all those muslims would bend over backwards to tell anyone who would listen..."oh I love this country, this is my country"....but within a year of us going overseas the mantra changed to "Bush is a devil, America is F'd up....we need a change".
Yes, we are all guilty (as Richard has posted) of saying things that might fall under violation of the Smith Act. I (and I cannot speak for others except those I know) have uttered a lot out loud and under my breath regarding the state of affairs but I never advocated overthrowing my government or causing harm to the POTUS. When it came out in the news about a few arrests being made to assassinate our current POTUS, I was relieved that law enforcement found these guys and arrested them!
Demographic time bomb: millions of Muslim immigrants will change Europe beyond recognition, and almost no policymakers are talking about it
August 8, 2009
And those who are talking about it are smeared and vilified as racists and bigots. When a nuclear-powered Islamic Republic of France threatens the U.S., however, some Americans may come to regret the ease with which they swallowed and even propagated defamation and lies about anti-jihad European politicians such as Geert Wilders.
"Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent," by Adrian Michaels in the Telegraph, August 8 (thanks to Alan of England):
Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it.
The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.
Europe's low white birth rate, coupled with faster multiplying migrants, will change fundamentally what we take to mean by European culture and society. The altered population mix has far-reaching implications for education, housing, welfare, labour, the arts and everything in between. It could have a critical impact on foreign policy: a study was submitted to the US Air Force on how America's relationship with Europe might evolve. Yet EU officials admit that these issues are not receiving the attention they deserve.
Jerome Vignon, the director for employment and social affairs at the European Commission, said that the focus of those running the EU had been on asylum seekers and the control of migration rather than the integration of those already in the bloc. "It has certainly been underestimatede_SLps [sic] there is a general rhetoric that social integration of migrants should be given as much importance as monitoring the inflow of migrants." But, he said, the rhetoric had rarely led to policy.
The countries of the EU have long histories of welcoming migrants, but in recent years two significant trends have emerged. Migrants have come increasingly from outside developed economies, and they have come in accelerating numbers.
The growing Muslim population is of particular interest. This is not because Muslims are the only immigrants coming into the EU in large numbers; there are plenty of entrants from all points of the compass. But Muslims represent a particular set of issues beyond the fact that atrocities have been committed in the West in the name of Islam.
America's Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, part of the non-partisan Pew Research Center, said in a report: "These [EU] countries possess deep historical, cultural, religious and linguistic traditions. Injecting hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people who look, speak and act differently into these settings often makes for a difficult social fit."...
That is not the core of the problem. The core of the problem is that they have a ready-made system of laws and customs that they consider superior to the laws and customs of Europe, and are ready to replace the one with the other. And their system denies freedom of speech and conscience, as well as equality of rights for women and non-Muslims. As such, all free people should be fighting against it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027158.php