Great Vocal Majority Podcast

Although estimates can vary considerably, throughout Europe, there are as many as  56 million Muslims living there.  Russia accounts for nearly half with over 27 million.  Excluding Russia, over half of the remainder can be found in just five countries:

• France - 6 million
• Germany - 4 million
• United Kingdom - 3 million
• Italy - 1.5 million
• Spain - 1 million

The remainder of Europe's Muslim population is scattered all over eastern and western Europe.  There are just three countries in Europe with majority Muslim populations:  Albania, Kosovo and Herzegovina.  Elsewhere in Europe, Muslims are only a tiny fraction of the population, but are growing rapidly.

How and why did the major powers of western Europe end up with so many Muslims?  And what are we to make of these 'no go' areas where it is claimed local police are forbidden to go and where Sharia law and courts reign?  How did this happen?  Is it true or just a sensationalized news report?

Islam is not native to Western Europe.  Insofar as Eastern Europe is concerned, particularly the Balkans, Ukraine and Russia, the Muslim presence is a vestige of Islamic invasions conducted many centuries ago.

After the end of the second World War, France declared itself an "immigrant country."  In 1961, the French colony of Algeria waged a war for independence from France.  Algerian immigration to French cities spiked during that time as Algerians sought to escape the war.

Daniel Pipes is an American historian, writer, the president of the Middle East Forum, and publisher of its Middle East Quarterly journal. In an article written by Mr. Pipes in 2006, he labeled 751 areas in France as "no-go zones."  The 2006 article has been the source of much confusion lately in 2014 and 2015.

Daniel Pipes wrote his original article in 2006, as mentioned, but in 2013, he admitted his article contained errors, which he sought to correct in good faith.  In January 2013, Pipes wrote,

I had an opportunity today to travel at length to several banlieues (suburbs) around Paris, including Sarcelles, Val d'Oise, and Seine Saint Denis. This comes on the heels of having visited over the years the predominantly immigrant (and Muslim) areas of Brussels, Copenhagen, Malmö, Berlin, and Athens.

A couple of observations:

• For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.
• These are not full-fledged no-go zones but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, "sensitive urban zones." In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.

Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.

Although it has been established that these zones are not wholly autonomous, the fact remains their presence has hindered assimilation of Muslims into French society.  Instead, the strictest religious elements within these areas appear desirous of bending French society and cultural norms to its own set of cultural preferences.

The French have taken action to resist these efforts. In 2004, France banned headscarves from state run primary and secondary education because it was a "conspicuous religious symbol", similar to a yarmulke or a Christian cross.   In 2011, France became the first nation in Europe to officially ban the burqa.

Recently, several commentators and Fox News needed to issue retractions and apologies for making inaccurate statements about the so called "no go" zones.  Still, while the retractions and apologies for those specific statements were completely warranted, it has been reported for years that Muslims in many of these zones are hostile and even violent to the native population, especially Jews.

In 2002, while writing for the New York Times, David Ignatius said, "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.”

The political left in America and elsewhere is desperate to run down critics of Islam or Fox News.  Controversializing news outlets and well respected critics who have admitted to and apologized for errors made, smacks of an agenda unrelated to this issue.

The bottom line:  At least according to one Middle Eastern expert respected in Conservative American circles, the claim of no go zones in France is somewhat exaggerated.  Nevertheless, multiculturalism is failing in France.  A society cannot be multicultural when norms within different cultures conflict or are intolerant of harmonious co-existence.

With Muslim birth rates and immigration rates far outpacing the native population growth, which is actually shrinking, the Muslim immigration and resistance to assimilate represents a form of colonization of France.  It strains credulity to expect the French to accept this without any nationalistic reaction.  When it comes, that reaction will create a great deal of unrest in France and evidence has indicated it already has.

Canadian television reported this attack by Muslim teens on people leaving a Catholic Church mass.

[youtube:"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jg8EeL7zD8"]

At the same time France was experiencing surging Muslim immigration from Algeria and elsewhere, West Germany created a guest worker program.  The number of Muslims in Germany is hard to measure because it is German law to maintain the privacy of one's religious affiliation.  It is believed that most of the Muslim immigrants are from Turkey.  The presence of radical Islamists in Germany has been well documented.  The 9/11 plot was hatched in a terrorist cell in Hamburg.

A 2013 article in a German newspaper reported that 90% of the criminal behavior committed by youths in Germany, are committed by those "with an immigrant background."  Much of the problem Germany has with Muslim immigrants seems to revolve around youth street gangs.

As with France, the local elected leadership is loathe to admit to a problem.  The primary concern of local officials seems to be the anticipated loss of tourism that could result from bad publicity out of fear of radical muslim violence.

Germans seem to have left the problem to localities.  By 2012, about one-half of all German states instituted bans on public sector workers wearing veils and head scarves.  Still, over 60% of Germans favor an overall ban, recognizing there is a problem.

As with France, the lack of assimilation by young muslims into German society is creating a societal problem, resulting in the same kind of nationalistic backlash.  And nobody needs to be reminded of the historical consequences resulting from the backlash of German nationalistic fervor.

In 2008, the Church of England's only Asian bishop, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester said that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology.

Writing in The Sunday UK Telegraph, he compared the threat to the use of intimidation by the far-Right, and said that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christianity to be the nation’s public religion in a multifaith, multicultural society.

His comments came at a time when a poll of the General Synod – the Church’s parliament – shows that its senior leaders, including bishops, also believe that Britain is being damaged by large-scale immigration.

The remarks by Nazir-Ali were strongly criticized by Muslim groups and Tories in England, but Conservatives largely supported the comments and asked only for milder language.

[youtube="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSjiaRzHqdU"]

CNN reported in 2013, of vigilante groups of Muslim men patroling Muslim areas and enforcing Sharia law.

[youtube="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcsG-u2GtZE"]

Another CNN report on the kind of Islamic radicalism present in Great Britain:[youtube:"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRFgcBbqs60&feature=youtu.be"]

It isn't important whether there are official no go zones in European countries or not.  The fact is, the multiculturalist social experiment has hit a brick wall with Islam.  A very sizable and dangerous contingent within the Islamic community has no desire or intention of blending into the nations in which they now live.  This contingent seeks to alienate itself from the dominant society, behave in a belligerent fashion and bend it to its own will.  They refuse to coexist peacefully unless the dominant culture capitulates to its demands.  It is irrelevant that a majority of Muslims do not agree with the approach of this radicalized contingent.  That is a "nice to know" fact.  But just as most Germans were not Nazi murderers, this fact too became wholly irrelevant when the Nazis took the reins of leadership in Germany.  It is no different with the Islamist radicals in Europe and the rest of the Muslim population not aligned with them.  Without their proactive, animated and effective denunciation and marginalization of the extremists, they will become swept up into their movement as surely as the main body of the German people did in the 1930s and 1940s.

Sources

Religious populations.com

No go zones in Germany

No go zones in Sweden

751 No go zones in France reported 9 years ago

Muslim areas in London

WHO IS THIS GUY?

Let me ask a serious question, that may sound over the top and provocative, but is meant in all sincerity:

Is there a difference between consciously traitorous actions versus incompetency or naivete when the results are the same for both?

Other than consciousness of motive, is there really any difference.

Iran is about to get a nuclear weapon, folks.  And Obama is going to let them get it, too.  Iran holds regular mass rallies where they chant, "Death to America."  It's not a euphemism.  They mean it.  Iran, more than any other nation, has funded terrorism, and is responsible for the death of more Americans than any other country.  Iran has sworn to destroy Israel, our closest ally.  Well, our closest ally, at least until Obama came to town.  Now, who knows where they stand with him?

We've had a sense of Obama's anti-Israel sentiments for years now.  He scarcely conceals his hostility toward the Israeli leadership.  His pro-Iranian sentiments aren't new either.  There have been hints of it now for a long time.

In 2009, during the Green Revolution in Iran, the regime of the mullahs was teetering on the brink of collapse amidst a wave of popular sentiment for democratic reform.  One good push and there was real hope for a democratic Iran.  The protesters looked to America, not for arms or material support, but for moral support.  They watched and waited for a single word of encouragement from the new President and the so called "leader of the free world."  Obama was silent.  Oddly silent.  The revolution for democracy in Iran was crushed and thousands jailed or executed very soon afterward.

Why was Obama silent?  This President has gone out of his way to weigh in with his opinion on plenty of issues where his opinion was not warranted or solicited.  He's offered his opinion when offering it was guaranteed to be unproductive and even problematic.  Yet, when his opinion could have made a difference, when it could have altered the destructive trajectory of world event, even changed history, Obama had nothing to say.

Didn't he favor democracy in Iran?

Impulsively, we might think, 'yes', giving Obama the benefit of the doubt offered to all of his predecessors  But what evidence do we have that Obama favors real democratic reforms anywhere?  When has Obama ever given a speech encouraging democratic reforms?  He seems almost too embarrassed to do so. Why couldn't he just speak up for democracy in the world generally, without specifically mentioning Iran?  It seems almost impossible to fathom, without considering the possibility that Obama was at a minimum agnostic about the Iranian regime.  What other possibilities exist that wouldn't cast doubt on Obama's loyalty to America?

Until this President and his administration, Americans presumed, and rightly so, that despite sometimes major differences in policy, all Presidents placed the safety and well-being of the nation above their own selfish motivations.  Even when Jimmy Carter badly botched Iran policy in the late 1970s, nobody questioned where his loyalties lay.  Carter lacked sober judgment, was shockingly naive, and overly committed to a peace with an enemy that had no desire or intention for peace.  But was Carter disloyal?  No.

This doesn't appear to be the case with Obama.  He's conducted himself on Iran policy and elsewhere in a manner that is, well quite frankly, startling.  Jarring enough to make the unthinkable thinkable:  Does this President have the safety and security of the nation as his top priority.  Sadly, it seems the answer to this question isn't just 'no', but 'hell no!'

Does that go too far?  

Should we not consider whether Obama's most deeply held feelings about America are antithetical to the feelings of well over 90% of Americans?

Do a President's loyalties stand above and beyond reproach when his behavior through action or lack of it, urge us to question those loyalties?

Why should a President remain unaccountable on something so fundamentally tied to the well being and security of an entire nation?

These and other questions have haunted many Americans over the last six years.

During his time in office, Obama has shown us that he's the master of the "slow roll."  He's done it over and over again and he's doing it here again with Iran's nuclear program.  Let's take a walk down memory lane.  When he first ran in 2008, Obama was unequivocally for traditional marriage.  He staked out a position that allowed for civil unions for gays, but never hinted at any softening of his position.  Only later, when his campaign contributions from gay rights groups were threatened, did he "evolve" on the issue.  But anyone who had examined Obama's political history knew he was pro-gay marriage all along.  He slow rolled the nation on that issue.   

Similarly, he slow rolled the country on the Affordable Care Act.  Dozens of times, Obama confidently assured the nation that his new health care law would leave them unaffected.  Without any reservation, caveat, condition or qualification, Obama slow rolled the entire country into believing the Affordable Care Act would only help the needy and leave their own plans and their own doctors unaffected.  His re-election in 2012 was based on this outright lie among others.  Obama defrauded his way back into office for a second term and while a mostly supine media protested for a time, this too was swept away by other events, diverting the focus of an already friendly media.

Obama slow rolled the country on the renewed threat by ISIS.  He referred to them as "the JV team."  That is, the 'junior varsity' of al-Qaeda.

When one city after another fell to the ISIS barbarians, as they conducted a campaign of savagery through Iraq, it wasn't until ISIS was standing at the gates of Baghdad itself before Obama had to sheepishly admit ISIS was no "JV team."  What purpose did slow rolling the renewed danger in Iraq serve?  What American interest?  Isis announced its intentions to attack America and Americans anywhere in the world they could be found.  Several lost their lives as a result.  Obama's response?  A token air campaign against these subhuman ISIS animals.

Still, Obama found motivation enough to support a popular movement in Egypt to oust Hosni Mubarak when it suited him.  The same kind of democratic uprising Obama failed to support to oust mortal enemies in Iran, was now enthusiastically supported to oust a faithful, albeit authoritarian ally in Egypt.  But why did it suit him to help oust Mubarak?  Perhaps the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood was pushing for Mubarak's ouster under the fig leaf of using a democratic election?  It wouldn't be the first time radical totalitarians rose to power on the strategy of 'one man, one vote, one time.'

So, Mubarak was ousted and the Muslim Brotherhood under Mohammed Morsi controlled Egypt.  That is, until Morsi attempted to deconstruct the civil society, and transform it into a Sharia controlled Islamist state.  Morsi was a wolf in sheep's clothing and an unprecedented uprising of millions of Egyptians unseated Morsi.  Did Obama support those democratic protesters?  No.  Why not?  Perhaps having no less than six senior national security advisers who are part of the Muslim Brotherhood can offer a hint as to why.  But this was now the second time sided against a democratic movement against a radical Islamist government.  A pattern has emerged.

Let's not forget who the Muslim Brotherhood is.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of al-Qaeda.  They are also the group claiming responsibility for the assassination of Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat.  The top al-Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood was also involved in the Holy Land Foundation trial of Sami al-Aryan.  In that trial, the strategy document of the Muslim Brotherhood was entered into evidence.  It clearly stated that it was the intention of that group to destroy western Christian civilization.  At least six men from this group are advising Obama.

There may be complex and justifiable reasons Obama seems to curry favor with our mortal enemies, while alienating our allies.  If those reasons do exist, they certainly aren't obvious from the man who promised "the most transparent administration in history."  It has been far from that.  In fact, it's been opposite of that.  As America enters the final act of the Obama drama, the world in more dangerous.  Our enemies are energized.  Our allies deflated.  And our President seems unconcerned.  It really should cause all of us to ask one simple question:

Who is Barack Obama?

Link to North American Strategy Paper of the Muslim Brotherhood

A review of the meaning of the 2014 election victory for the Republican Party.

Was it a repudiation of the Obama agenda?

This podcast explains what happened, but more importantly, where it is going next.