Tag Archives: Terrorism

Every single left-wing extremist rioting and looting in Democrat-run cities is a Biden supporter

If you're trying to help the rioters escape justice, you're pro-rioting
If you’re trying to help the rioters escape justice, then you’re pro-rioting

I watched Donald Trump’s speech on last night, and I learned that Joe Biden is now trying to issue a vague disagreement with the arson, looting, vandalism, violence, domestic terrorism and murder being committed by BLM and Antifa. Is there any reason to think that Joe Biden and his VP-pick Kamala Harris oppose rioting, arson and violence? Let’s look at their actions and see.

So, as you can see from the image above, Kamala Harris supports something called the “Minnesota Freedom Fund”. They bail out people who are caught rioting, looting, setting fires, and murdering innocent people.

Here’s an interesting story from Fox 9 Minnesota local news:

Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice convicted sex offender, according to court records reviewed by the FOX 9 Investigators.

According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.

Darnika Floyd is charged with second degree murder, for stabbing a friend to death. MFF paid $100,000 cash for her release.

Christopher Boswell, a twice convicted rapist, is currently charged with kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in two separate cases. MFF paid $350,00 [sic] in cash for his release.

If any of this surprises you, just remember that Biden / Harris are for abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. Biden wants to reverse the Hyde amendment to force pro-lifers to fun abortions. Harris attacks people who expose organ trafficking from aborted babies. There’s extremists who see violence as normal and natural.

Here’s another one of the Democrat domestic terrorists that will be voting for Biden / Harris in November:

Michael Forest Reinoehl, the suspect in a fatal shooting during another violent and chaotic night in Portland Saturday, is reportedly “100% antifa” and previously accused of bringing a loaded gun to a protest held in early July.

Reinoehl is the prime suspect in a homicide investigation into the death of Aaron Danielson, “a supporter of the conservative group Patriot Prayer.”

Reinoehl was identified “by a distinctive tattoo on his neck of a ‘black power’ fist and by a family member who had seen videos of the shooting.

An Instagram post on June 16 outlined Reinoehl’s feelings about Antifa, police brutality, and protesting with phrases like “it will be a war and like all wars there will be casualties.” Hashtags at the bottom of the post and other posts on his feed indicate his support for Black Lives Matter and “f*** the police.”

Do you think that people like this will be prosecuted in a Biden / Harris administration? Just look at how Kamala Harris handled Planned Parenthood in her own state – by persecuting the whistleblowers who exposed organ harvesting and trafficking, rather than the actual organ traffickers themselves.

It’s not just Biden / Harris who support the Brown Shirt mob, it’s left-wing new outlets like Huffington Post and NPR – this is where rank-and-file Democrats get their ideas about what a proper Brown Shirt should do in order to get their fascist “elected”.

The Federalist reports:

Vicky Osterweil’s new book, “In Defense of Looting,” “makes the case that looting isn’t a betrayal of protests for Black lives, but a vital aspect of the movement,” writes Claire Fallon in the Huffington Post. Fallon approvingly connected Osterweil’s defense of looting directly to rioting in Wisconsin last week that led to two dead and millions of dollars in damages against innocent bystanders who saw their life’s work go up in smoke.

National Public Radio also decided to feature Osterweil Thursday on its podcast “Code Switch,” for which the tag line is “Race. In your face,” under the banner “America reckons with racial injustice.” The interview openly makes the case that the existence of racial injustice in history justifies violent crime.

[…]Osterweil is a transgender male who calls himself a “writer, editor, and agitator.” His Twitter handle is Vicky_ACAB. ACAB means “all cops are b-stards.” The acronym has been spray-painted on buildings in Kenosha and numerous other riot-torn American cities this summer in the name of Black Lives Matter.

[…]Osterweil “argues that looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society,” Escobar writes. “The rioters who smash windows and take items from stores, she says, are engaging in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of ‘law and order,’ and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.”

See, rioting and looting are just socialism, and the secular leftists are all for socialism. This isn’t an abberation, this is the Democrat party platform. If they get elected, we’ll see more of this, and there won’t be any resistance, since they want to confiscate the weapons of law-abiding people, de-fund the police, and charge anyone who defends themselves from their Brown Shirt mob with murder. We are seeing this right now.

I know that most people reading will look at the their grandmothers who are Democrats and think “that doesn’t look like a national socialist in 1930s Germany trying to impose fascism”. But this is a new Democrat party that openly embraces racism, socialism, and fascism. It’s so bad, that even traditional Democrat voting blocs are moving away from it.

See for yourself:

The new Hill-HarrisX survey of registered Black voters between Aug. 22-25 — which included the first two days of the Republican National Convention (RNC) convention — found nearly one on four said they approve of the job Trump is doing as president. The other 76% percent disapprove.

That’s up 9 points — or 60% — from the previous survey conducted Aug. 8-11 in which the president got 15%.

The new survey found support among Hispanic voters also rose by 2% from the last poll to 32%.

And also this:

“In June approval of protests was widespread, with 61 percent approving of the protests and 36 percent disapproving,” the poll found. “Approval declined in August with 48 percent approving and 48 percent disapproving.”

The biggest change was among suburbanites who were, it seems, largely unaware of protests (and ensuing riots) when they were affecting major urban areas but began to pay attention when Kenosha, a more suburban, more residential area of Wisconsin, started seeing major damage.

The only way we’re going to prevent left-wing fascism in our country is by exposing the actions of the Democrats. If the election is decided on what they say, we lose. If the election is decided on what they’ve done, we win. Make sure everyone around you knows what they’ve done.

Are snowflakes and libertarians right to worry that killing Iranian terrorists will start a war?

Neville Chamberlain Obama: peace in our time
Neville Chamberlain Obama: peace in our time

I talked to a few progressives and libertarians on the weekend. They seemed to think that Trump’s decision to sanction two Iranian generals would lead to war. Now, I asked the libertarians and progressives a bit about how World War 2 started. They didn’t know anything about how it started. Let’s see what Trump did in Iran, and then look at WW2 history to see if it is likely to stop or start a war.

Before I start, I just want to say that someone shared a post by far-left filmmaker Michael Moore claiming that Americans had ever heard of Soleimani or the Quds Force. Here are my previous 134 posts on Iran, my previous 9 posts on the Quds Force, and my previous post on Soleimani. Speak for yourself, Michael Moore.

First, who is Solemani, and what is the Quds Force? The New York Times explains:

More than any other American military operation since the invasion of Iraq, the assassination yesterday of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Qods Force of its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, is a seismic event. The killings of Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leaders of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, were certainly meaningful, but they were also largely symbolic, because their organizations had been mostly destroyed. Taking out the architect of the Islamic Republic’s decades-long active campaign of violence against the United States and its allies, especially Israel, represents a tectonic shift in Middle Eastern politics.

[…]In Lebanon, Mr. Suleimani built Lebanese Hezbollah into the powerful state within a state that we know today. A terrorist organization receiving its funds, arms and marching orders from Tehran, Hezbollah has a missile arsenal larger than that of most countries in the region. The group’s success has been astounding, helping to cement Iran’s influence not just in Lebanon but farther around the Arab world.

Building up on this successful experience, Mr. Suleimani spent the last decade replicating the Hezbollah model in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, propping up local militias with precision weapons and tactical know-how. In Syria, his forces have allied with Russia to prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, a project that, in practice, has meant driving over 10 million people from their homes and killing well over half a million. In Iraq, as we have seen in recent days, Mr. Suleimani’s militias ride roughshod over the legitimate state institutions. They rose to power, of course, after participating in an insurgency, of which he was the architect, against American and coalition forces. Hundreds of American soldiers lost their lives to the weapons that the Qods Force provided to its Iraqi proxies.

I think this part is worth emphasizing – Solemani was the aggressor in the Iraq embassy attack, and he has a record of attacking American armed forces:

Soleimani, who was designated and sanctioned by the U.N., E.U., and U.S. alike, directly approved Tuesday’s U.S. embassy storming in Baghdad by Iranian proxy militia Kataib Hezbollah, and was credibly assessed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as actively planning more “imminent” attacks against hard American assets in the Middle East, has been directly active in the mass murder of Americans. He personally oversaw the mass arming of Shiite Iraqi insurgents and it is estimated that the IRGC-QF targeted and killed over 600 Americans in Iraq from 2003–2011. The State Department asserts that this personally amounts to a whopping 17% of all deaths of U.S. military personnel during the Iraq War.

So, far from Trump’s response being disproportionate, this was actually a long-overdue response. It was even overdue from Trump.

The message that Iran got after 8 years of Obama was clear: acts of aggression committed by Iran against the United States and her allies would be rewarded, including the $1.7 BILLION payoff from the Obama administration. The Obama administration’s policy was isolationism and appeasement. And this was fine with Democrat voters, because not a single Democrat voter (or libertarian ) knew anything about Iran, the Iran deal, Soleimani, or the Quds Force. They are low-information voters.

Now let’s see how World War 2 started.

Here is a helpful lecture by military historian Victor Davis Hanson.

Germany re-armed in 1936. Austria was annexed in 1938. The Rhineland was re-occupied in 1938. Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1939. And the allied democracies did nothing to stop Hitler. Similarly, Japan also re-armed, broke treaties and invaded neighbors. And the allied democracies did nothing to stop them, despite having superior planes, tanks, and ships. This allowed the Axis powers time to research better weapons, re-arm, and gain a strategic advantage. The Axis powers could have been stopped early on, at a much lower cost in blood and treasure. It was the libertarians and the progressives with their policies of isolationism and appeasement that made World War 2 much worse than it needed to be.

VDH explains:

Hitler assumed the United States either could not or would not offer much military help to his intended European targets.

Why, then, did a relatively weak Nazi Germany between 1939 and 1941 believe that it could take on much of the world, and inspire Axis partners such as Italy and Japan to follow its suicidal lead?

The answer is obvious. British and French appeasement, Soviet collaboration and American isolation had together convinced Hitler and his Axis allies that the victors of World War I were more eager to grant concessions at any cost than were the defeated.

In the lecture, VDH explains that we know from the writings of the leaders of Germany and Japan that they interpreted the isolationist / appeasement policies of the libertarian progressives as weakness, and this is what caused them to re-arm and attack their neighbors. Prior to the historical start of WW2, the Western nations had better tanks, planes and ships than the Axis powers. But they refused to use them to deter the Axis powers. And that’s why World War 2 was much more costly and bloody than it needed to be.

Finally, I should quickly note that America pursued a different strategy in the Cold War, under Ronald Reagan. Reagan was villified by the libertarians and progressives for taking a strong stand against communism. Instead of appeasing and isolating, he put America on a war footing, making aggression costly to the Soviet Union. This approach worked to avoid an actual World War 3. Although his critics attacked him for being pro-war, his tough approach was exactly what was needed to cause the bully to back down.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

General Mattis: Obama covered up Iran terrorist attack on U.S. soil to save Iran deal

How far did Obama go to give Iran nuclear weapons?
How far did Obama go to give Iran nuclear weapons?

Everywhere I turn in the mainstream media, I’m told how the Obama administration was the most scandal-free administration in history. There wasn’t even a hint of corruption, according to the mainstream media. I’m beginning to think that it’s a good test of intelligence to ask a person how many Obama scandals they can name. In this post, I want to look at an Obama scandal that the media ignored.

First, let’s start with a list of Obama scandals:

  • 1. Operation Fast and Furious
  • 2. Benghazi.
  • 3. The IRS targeted conservative organizations.
  • 4. The DOJ seized Associated Press phone records as well as phone and email records from Fox News reporter James Rosen.
  • 5. The NSA conducted mass surveillance against American citizens without a warrant.
  • 6. The Obama administration paid ransom to Iran for hostages, and lied to the American people about it.
  • 7. Hillary’s email scandal.
  • 8. The Environmental Protection Agency poisoned a Colorado river.
  • 9. The EPA also broke federal law in promoting a regulation.
  • 10. The GSA scandal.
  • 11. The Secret Service scandal.

This list doesn’t even include many of the foreign policy scandals of the administration, like leaking classified information, trading a deserter for 5 senior Taliban commanders, releasing the traitor Bradley/Chelsea Manning early, etc. I mean, the list could be twice that length. But you would never know about any of these if you relied on the mainstream media, or their “fact checkers”, because they are Democrats and they lie to cover up for their party.

Here is the latest scandal, reported by the Washington Examiner:

Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis says he predicted years ago that Iran would escalate its provocations against the United States — and he partly blames the Obama administration’s anemic reaction to an Iranian plot to bomb a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

[…]Mattis says Washington didn’t even inform him when Iran committed an “act of war” on American soil.

[…]As Mattis writes, “Attorney General Eric Holder said the bombing plot was ‘directed and approved by elements of the Iranian government and, specifically, senior members of the Qods Force.’ The Qods were the Special Operations Force of the Revolutionary Guards, reporting to the top of the Iranian government.”

[…]“In my view, we had to hold Iran to account and strike back when attacked. But there was a reason for the administration’s restraint. The administration was secretly negotiating with Iran, although I was not privy to the details at the time.”

Those negotiations would lead to the Iran nuclear deal, signed in 2015. Mattis is critical of the agreement, which President Trump withdrew from last year. “In my military judgment, America had undertaken a poorly calculated, long-shot gamble. At the same time, the administration was lecturing our Arab friends that they had to accommodate Iran as if it were a moderate neighbor in the region and not an enemy committed to their destruction,” Mattis writes. “As long as its leaders consider Iran less a nation-state than a revolutionary cause, Iran will remain a terrorist threat potentially more dangerous than Al Qaeda or ISIS.”

So, Obama covered for a terrorist attack attempted by Iran against a U.S. ally on U.S. soil.But that’s not the only time that Obama covered for Iran in order to save his Iran deal.

Here is another one, reported by the far-left New York Post:

The Obama administration stymied a sprawling investigation into the terror group Hezbollah — and its highly lucrative drug- trafficking networks — to protect the Iran nuclear deal, according to a bombshell report.

A team at the Drug Enforcement Administration had been working for almost a decade to bring down the Iran-backed militant organization’s sophisticated $1 billion-a-year drug ring, which laundered money and smuggled cocaine into the United States, Politico reported.

But the departments of Justice and Treasury repeatedly undermined agents’ efforts to arrest and prosecute key members of the criminal network — because the Obama White House feared upsetting Tehran ahead of the nuclear agreement, according to Politico.

Former Treasury official Katherine Bauer even admitted in little-noticed testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs last February that “under the Obama administration . . . these [Hezbollah-related] investigations were tamped down for fear of rocking the boat with Iran and jeopardizing the nuclear deal.”

In my opinion, Obama made the Iran deal happen because he wanted to send $1.7 billion in cash to Iran to help them to develop nuclear weapons that they could then use against their enemy Israel. And that’s the foreign policy that every single Democrat voter voted for when they voted for him in 2008 and again in 2012. They believed in destroying Israel and they paid a terrorist-sponsoring, drug-smuggling nation to do their dirty work for them. Hitler would have been proud.

Antifa Democrat cites AOC’s “concentration camp” rhetoric in domestic terrorism manifesto

ICE detention centers are literally mass murdering US citizens
ICE detention centers are literally mass murdering US citizens

I remember when a Bernie bro who worked for Bernie Sanders’ campaign took a gun and shot at Republican legislators who were just playing baseball. It seems like domestic terrorism attacks are being committed by Democrats more and more. Just this past week, one of their Democrat brown shirt fascists committed more violence, and even cited AOC’s rhetoric in his “manifesto”.

Here’s the latest domestic terrorism committed by Democrats, reported by the Daily Wire:

According to a local report, a man that authorities say attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Tacoma, Washington over the weekend repeatedly used the same “concentration camp” rhetoric which socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) injected into U.S. politics last month, in a manifesto that he allegedly wrote.

The attacker, whom The Daily Wire is not naming, identified himself as part of the far-left extremist group Antifa in the document, according to CBS-affiliate KIRO-7. The attacker “was armed with a rifle and incendiary devices that he was tossing at the Northwest Detention Center early Saturday morning.”

KIRO-7 adds: “Friends say he did make a statement in this manifesto he sent to them Friday night. In it he says, ‘i regret that i will miss the rest of the revolution,’ he wrote, ‘doing what i can to help defend my precious and wondrous people is an experience too rich to describe. i am antifa.'”

KIRO-7’s report included a link to the manifesto, where the attacker used the term “concentration camps” four times and referred to them as being “corporate for profit.”

Ocasio-Cortez injected the rhetoric into the national political discussion last month after she made the dubious claim during an Instagram live video.

What did AOC think about this domestic terrorist?

AOC: If you detain illegal immigrants, you're Hitler
AOC: If you support the detention of illegal immigrants, then you’re Hitler

The Daily Wire reports on her reaction to the terrorist attack:

After an attempted terror attack by a self-identified far-left Antifa member against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Tacoma, Washington on Saturday, a reporter from Rebel Media asked freshmen Democrats if they would condemn the attack, Antifa violence, and violence in general. Unsurprisingly, “fresh face” lawmakers, namely Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), refused to utter such a simple condemnation.

Omar, amazingly, apparently thought the questioning was funny, laughing when she was asked about the far-left violence.

“Will you condemn Antifa?” the Rebel’s Keean Bexte asked Ocasio-Cortez and Omar. “Do you feel like you have any sort of responsibility for their actions?”

[…]Omar, stone-faced, again refused to answer.

“Do you feel like you bear any responsibility for what happened?” the reporter continued. “Ms. Cortez, do you feel responsible at all?”

Directing his attention to both representatives, Bexte against asked: “Will you tell Americans not to be violent anymore?”

This is when Rep. Omar, holding her Starbucks drink, is seen and heard laughing on video.

It’s not just AOC who is apparently inspiring domestic terrorists. Consider this story from the Washington Free Beacon:

Democratic freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has been holding a series of secret fundraisers with groups that have been tied to the support of terrorism, appearances that have been closed to the press and hidden from public view.

The content of these speeches, given to predominately Muslim audiences, remains unknown, prompting some of Omar’s critics to express concern about the type of rhetoric she is using before these paying audiences, particularly in light of the lawmaker’s repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes in public.

Omar recently spoke in Florida at a private event hosted by Islamic Relief, a charity organization long said to have deep ties to groups that advocate terrorism against Israel. Over the weekend, she will appear at another private event in California that is hosted by CAIR-CA PAC, a political action committee affiliated with the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR a group that was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive terror-funding incident.

Omar’s appearance at these closed-door forums is raising eyebrows in the pro-Israel world due to her repeated and unapologetic public use of anti-Semitic stereotypes accusing Jewish people of controlling foreign policy and politics. With Omar’s popularity skyrocketing on the anti-Israel left, it appears her rhetoric is translating into fundraising prowess.

So here you have socialists who hate Jews. Where have I seen a political party that championed socialism and anti-Semitism before? Oh yes, in 1930s Germany. And those German socialists also used violence and vandalism to press their socialist anti-Semitic agenda.

I’m concerned, because I think that socialists like AOC and Omar and Tlaib represent the future of the Democrat party. They’re wildly popular with young Democrats. Young Democrats agree with them on eliminating private health insurance, eliminating gasoline-powered cars, capitulating to radical terrorists in the Middle East, persecuting Christians who dissent from the LGBT agenda, and subsidizing infanticide with taxpayer dollars. I think this violence-inducing rhetoric is the future of the Democrat party. There is no tolerance for American ideals on the secular left.

Why did European countries import millions of unskilled Muslim immigrants?

Muslim populations in Europe
Muslim populations in Europe

I am currently reading a book recommended to me by Dina, my wise advisor. The book is amazing. I want to put it in the hands of all the naive, leftist Christian leaders and Republicans who favor amnesty, and not building a border wall. If I can’t convince you to read the book right now, at least take a look at this review of it in The Federalist.

Excerpt:

“The Strange Death of Europe” is a polemical but perceptive book culled from Murray’s extended sojourns across Europe’s frontiers – from the Italian island of Lampedusa, a flyspeck in the Mediterranean closer to the shores of North Africa than it is to Sicily, and to Greek islands that sit within sight of the Turkish coastline. These places have borne the brunt of the recent exodus from the Middle East and North Africa, but the author has also ventured to the remote suburbs of Scandinavia and Germany and France where many of these ­migrants end up. The resulting portrait is not a happy one.

[…]The distinguishing feature of modern Europe is its persistent ennui, shown in the inability or unwillingness “to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument.” What’s more, Europeans seem less stirred to face these unpleasant facts than they are fearful of interpreting them too precisely.

The book analyzes how the secular left “argued” for more immigration of low-skilled Muslims from countries that do not accept Western views on things like the respectful treatment of women.

The never-slacking thirst among Europe’s political class for more immigration has rested on two flawed assumptions, one economic and the other normative (and usually in that order). The economic assumption cites the benefits of immigration without accounting for its costs, and seldom acknowledges that benefits accrue chiefly to the migrants themselves and to highly compensated native inhabitants. Most of the rest of society is left to foot the bill for this immense regressive redistribution of wealth from the poor (who are squeezed out of the labor force) to the rich (who benefit from cheap labor).

Any public concerns about the financial downsides of this immigration – from increased pressure on housing markets to depressed wages – have been swept aside in deference to Europe’s dwindling fertility rates. (In a classic instance of one erroneous public policy begetting another, Murray shrewdly notes that the political left encouraged a “one-child policy” in order to attain an “optimum global population” only later to demand mass immigration in order to lift birthrates back to replacement levels.) The problem of Europe’s birth dearth is very real. The working-age population of Western Europe peaked in 2012 at 308 million – and is set to decline to 265 million by 2060.

So how will immigration schemes alleviate Europe’s fertility-driven strain on the welfare state? It is not clear that they will. Advocates of the rejuvenating effects of immigration are seldom obliged to spell out the wisdom of importing the poor and dispossessed of the world who generally lack the skills required for success in an advanced market economy. Can these migrants reliably be expected to contribute more in taxes than they consume in state aid? (They wouldn’t be alone in their dependence on government largesse: plenty of native workers, too, are struggling mightily to cope with the creative destruction unleashed by the march of globalization and technology.)

When advocates of open borders are pressed on these points, they generally repair to the normative argument. It has been claimed that when a flood of migrants started to pile up at Europe’s frontiers in 2015, the issue ceased to be economic and instead became moral: tending to the needs of beleaguered strangers. Thus Europe’s longstanding debate over immigration suddenly transformed into a contest between head and heart, and in a stampede of sanctimony it was decided that soft-heartedness was better hard-headedness.

What was amazing to me, is that people from these Islamic countries were able to just walk in to Europe and claim asylum. This put them on an immediate path to citizenship. Since there were so many people coming, their claims were not vetted. The immigrants would destroy their own identity documents after arriving in Europe, and then claim to be coming from whatever nation had a war going on, e.g. from Syria. Even if they could not speak any Syrian, they would still be let in and put on a path to citizenship! Incredible.

I have to include this:

After the 7/7 bombings in London, polls revealed that 68 percent of British Muslims believe that British citizens who “insult Islam” should be arrested and prosecuted.

See, no problem at all integrating into Western civilization. It’s not like their just going to start raping and murdering 14-year-old Jewish girls, or start up underage sex-trafficking rings. But the people making the immigration policy don’t care about public safety. They want to appear compassionate. And they do it by spending other people’s money and by risking other people’s safety. There is no concern for the money and safety of taxpayers, the important thing is that the politicians feel good about themselves. They’re better than the people who they stick with the bill. Or the people they stick with the machete. I know that compassionate leftists like Russell Moore want me to think that they are good people, but I don’t. Because I always think of the victims of their compassion. Anyone who votes for more immigration without oversight and accountability is responsible for the harm.

For me, the most interesting part of the book was not about why secular leftist politicians decided to open up the borders, how many Muslim immigrants commit crimes against their welcoming hosts, how European activists subvert the law to welcome in more immigrants (including lying about their own rapes at the hands of Muslim refugees, to cover for the rapist), or how the police cover up crimes committed by Muslim refugees and immigrants. The most interesting part was how anyone who tries to make public safety or fiscal arguments against the mass importation of low-skilled Muslims was vilified. Careers were ended. Reputations were ruined. And then the Muslims themselves would launch lawsuits or take more violent, and even murderous, measures to silence their critics.