Mayor Slay and citizens lobbying to bring Syrians to St. Louis; a Senate hearing that exposes there is no way to know who these people are; a Presidential Memorandum and resulting task force; and the president telling immigrants they do not have to assimilate. How are these connected, and is there more to the story than what meets the eye? Should we Americans be concerned?

“Immigration without assimilation is invasion.”
–Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

St. Louis Post Dispatch, September 14, 2015, “Bring Them Here! Shout St. Louisans seeking to help Syrian refugees.”

The rally in University City with the St. Louis chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, the International Institute of St. Louis, and others including Presbyterian minister Greg Johnson demonstrated to bring to St. Louis at least 1,000 Muslim Syrians. Johnson said as he pointed to Slay’s family history [Maronite Catholic Lebanese immigrants]: ‘That’s what St. Louis does for Arab-Americans,’ he said. ‘They don’t just come and are tolerated as a minority group. They assimilate …” Supporters went on to “cite the 10,000 Bosnians who resettled here in the mid-1990s … [now] more than 50,000.”

Ten days later Mayor Slay joined mayors of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore and others who are part of Cities United for Immigration Action Coalition in asking President Obama to “open America’s doors to at least 10,000 Syrians refugees …”

Investors Business Daily, October 6, 2015, “DHS Confesses: No Databases Exist to Vet Syrian Refugees.”

Immigration: As the White House prepares to dump another 10,000 Syrian refugees on U.S. cities, it assures us these mostly Muslim men undergo a ‘robust screening’ process. Not so, admits the agency responsible for such vetting.

Under grilling from GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, head of the Senate subcommittee on immigration, the Homeland Security official in charge of vetting Syrian and other foreign Muslim refugees confessed that no police or intelligence databases exist to check the backgrounds of incoming refugees against criminal and terrorist records.”

On November 21, 2014, a “Presidential Memorandum – Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Refugees” was issued by President Obama. He created the White House Task Force on New Americans, which released in April 2015 an action plan called Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents. This federal program essentially promotes cheap foreign labor with integration, not assimilation, as its goal. The term “all residents” refers to the proposed refugees.

Over the summer of 2015, foreigners who want to become U.S. citizens don’t have to assimilate, President Barack Obama said in a recent video, Stand for Opportunity, aimed at convincing migrants to pursue American citizenship:

It’s not about changing who you are, it’s about adding a new chapter to your journey … and to our journey as a nation of immigrants,”5 Obama narrates in his two-minute video urging almost nine million resident migrants to sign up for citizenship so they can vote in 2016.

Mayor Slay and citizens lobbying to bring Syrians to St. Louis; a Senate hearing that exposes there is no way to know who these people are; a Presidential Memorandum and resulting task force; and the president telling immigrants they do not have to assimilate. How are these connected, and is there more to the story than what meets the eye? Should we Americans be concerned?

Background

A Short History of LEGAL Immigration

The short history of America is the story of the English coming to America for freedom to practice their Judeo Christian religions, and the French to seek economic freedom and convert the Indians to Christianity. In Europe, the Irish and the British fought, but in America they learned to live next door to each other. Why? Their common Judeo/Christian worldview of a creator God as the authority (instead of the king) and the values of man being created in the image of God with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness allowed them to unify under the Christian view. Even though that view might be Catholic, Protestant or Jew, they were able to meld their English, Irish, Italian, or German heritages into being an American. Most immigrants strived to learn English, become American and get along. Why did America, a land of different nations work?

They had a common belief system that united them around the Constitution.

Fifty years ago this month, in 1965, all this changed. The St. Louis Post Dispatch ran a story titled “1965 Immigration Act, presented as symbolic, changed nation.” It was a symbolic step that triggered seismic demographic change. Under Senator Ted Kennedy’s leadership, this is what happened:

“The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system. It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened up chain migration [all family members eligible after one immigrates successfully] into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers.” “Starting in 1924, an immigration law [had] limited the number of immigrants from a particular country to two (2) percent of the population of that country already living in the United States in 1890. Restrictions loosened slightly over the middle 20th century, but entering from a nonfavored nation was still very difficult. … A country that was almost entirely nativeborn [95%] in 1965 [now in 2015] has a significant foreign-born population [14% plus]; demographic diversity has spread to every region, expanding a black-and-white racial paradigm into a multicolored one.” “This country now [2009] has more than 50 million natives of other countries and their children. In a country of 300 million, that is an incredible influence on every aspect of our political and social and economic lives …

“Massive expansion of the refugee programs in the late 1970s, open[ed] up massive loopholes  and encourage[ed] a domestic resettlement industry that became a major lobby for more and more overall immigration.” Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch describes the nine main federal contractors whose “size of their State Department contract is dependent on the number of refugees they resettle (they are literally paid by the head).” Looking at their 990 federal tax forms, she found that 60-98% of their income came from these federal payments. They include the “Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service that in 2012 was 97% tax payer funded; World Relief (National Association of Evangelicals) 68% and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops 98%.” In 2015, it is estimated that the direct federal cost of “processing, moving and resettling” these legal refugees is well over $1 BILLION. This does not even include the additional expenses of “food stamps, subsidized housing, most health care, educational costs for the children, and costs associated with the criminal justice system including translators required by a Clinton-era executive order.

“The 1986 blanket amnesty. Kennedy’s skills may have been best seen here where he got legislators on our side to agree to the amnesty in exchange for enforcement rules that he made sure were written in a way that  would not work. Within a decade, he would be using the inability to enforce the 1986 rules as an excuse for why we needed more green cards and more amnesties. An example of Kennedy’s great skill was that he persuaded Ronald Reagan to enthusiastically support this bill.”

“The 1990 immigration act, which increased overall immigration by another 35%. The first President Bush was Kennedy’s co-partner, just as the second President Bush was Kennedy’s eager co-partner in trying to force through another blanket amnesty 2001-2008.

“The 1990 act also established the lottery whereby we randomly give away 50,000 green cards a year to people in countries picked because they have the least ties and cultural association with the United States, and which disproportionately are terrorist-sponsoring countries. This was something of a  compromise for Kennedy who was able to ensure that during the first few years, much of the lottery winners would be illegal aliens from Ireland – his own ethnic group.

“The H-1B visas which have enabled corporations to keep hundreds of thousands of American kids from getting a foothold in the high tech industry.” H-1B visas allow highly trained and educated foreigners to get jobs in America, often being paid less than American citizens equally qualified.

“The total defeat of liberal civil rights champion Barbara Jordan’s blue-ribbon commission recommendations to reduce overall immigration and eliminate chain migration and the lottery in 1996.

“Six mini-amnesties that passed in the 1990s, primarily aimed at specific nationalities.”

Immigration is summed up succinctly in a headline from National Public Radio’s Jennifer Ludden (May  9,  2006), “1965 Immigration Law Changed Face of America.”

Current Immigration Policy

On November 21, 2014, President Obama established The White House Task Force on New Americans. The best description of current policy is in the “Presidential Memorandum – Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees” that was issued by President Obama. His purpose? Obama says, “It is important that we develop a Federal immigrant integration strategy  … By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order as follows: … [Emphasis added.]

Section 1. [a] White House Task Force on New Americans …

Section 2. [whose] Mission and Function is …

(iv) collect and disseminate immigrant integration data, policies, and programs that affect numerous executive departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments and nongovernmental actors; [Statistics ONLY purpose are to provide the data for control. The federal government becomes the holder of the indentured servant contract.]

(v) conduct outreach to representatives of nonprofit organizations, state and local government agencies, elected officials, and other interested persons that can assist with the Task Force’s development of recommendations; [The nine government refugee resettlement contractors paid by the head, etc.]

(vi) work with federal, state, and local entities to measure and strengthen equitable access to services and programs for new Americans, consistent with applicable law; [Welfare programs.]

Welcome All Residents

What does the April 2015 White House Task Force on New Americans called Strengthening Communities By Welcoming All Residents: A Federal Strategic Action Plan on Immigrant and Refugee Integration actually say?

The Executive Summary notes that three integration pillars had been the focus the past six years – “civic, economic and linguistic.” A careful read of the 64-page plan reveals the emphasis on pushing the immigrants to become citizens and thus voters, getting them the low paying jobs that big business wants filled and enabling them to speak enough English to function in a foreign culture. “Immigrants and refugees can help us meet labor force needs as the Baby Boomer generation reaches retirement age …”(Emphasis in original.)

Already, in Maine, immigrants and illegals are becoming community organizers demanding government services. In an article titled Immigrant Mainers launching new political action committees, Elmuatz Abdelrahim (an officer of the New Mainer Political Action Committee) gave as one of the reasons for political involvement by immigrants, “ ‘Efforts at the state and local levels to restrict social services for legal immigrants have underscored the need to act now’, he said. The LePage administration has pressed for restrictions on state aid to undocumented immigrants, and proposed prohibiting municipalities from using state funds to provide General Assistance to some immigrants.”

Integration or Assimilation

Very rarely is the word assimilation used in any of these refugee resettlement plans. Rather as the Welcoming New Neighbors action plan does, it focuses on integration.

Does it matter whether it is integration or assimilation?

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, assimilate means:

• to make similar
• to absorb and incorporate into one’s thinking
• to absorb (groups of different cultures) into the main cultural body

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, integrate means:

• to make whole or complete by adding or bringing together parts
• to remove the legal and social barriers imposing segregation upon (racial groups) so as to permit free and equal association.

Putting it into easy to understand language, assimilate means different cultures subordinating and setting aside their culture in favor of traditional American culture. Integrate means each culture prioritizes and maintains its own culture and laws as superior, yet co-exists with other cultures. That is a big difference? America worked because immigrants assimilated; it was the melting pot of different western cultures, and most of all, because it was based on Judeo/Christian beliefs.

The majority of Bosnians and other Muslims in St. Louis have integrated, not assimilated. In 1982, there was only one mosque in St. Louis, until 1995 when the second one was opened. As of 2015, the number of mosques (or community centers) is 28, and as has happened in other cities and at earlier times, these immigrants tend to congregate in groups – called ribats. While many have adopted western dress, a good deal of women are still veiled, indicating observance to Sharia law’s mandates, which further segregates them and sends a message to the area that women are still second class citizens unable to participate in America’s freedom of the individual.

The Elephant in the Room

“… are we to assume that all religions share the same essential truths …?”

In a provacative article from 2010, Dr. Wm. Kilpatrick from Boston College asks:

“Will any religion provide a proper foundation for our form of government? Does every religion confer equal benefits to society and to individuals? …

“According to the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, but are all Supreme Beings equal? The Declaration states that men are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,’ but to which Creator is the Declaration referring? It would make no sense to claim that Allah would qualify for the position, because in Islam all men are not created equal. Muslims, who are described in the Koran as ‘the best of people,’ are considered to be decidedly superior to non-Muslims. For example, under Shariah law a Muslim who kills another Muslim may have to pay with his life, but a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim need only pay ‘blood money’ to the murdered man’s relatives. Islamic charity isn’t dispensed equally either. It’s only meant for other Muslims …

“The Supreme Being as depicted in the Koran is an entirely different sort of being from the one depicted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Although a lot of Christians like to say that ‘We all worship the same God,’ the Koran explicitly rejects Christianity and the Christian notion of God …

“Muslims are expected to conform their lives to Muhammad. Unfortunately, for those who think that religions are interchangeable, the imitation of Muhammad leads in a very different direction than the imitation of Christ. The imitation of Muhammad leads to unequal treatment of believers and non-believers, to child brides, polygamy, wife beating, stoning for adulterers, the murder of apostates, and various other, shall we say, un-American activities …

“Just as it’s not wise for a society to maintain a strict neutrality between religion and irreligion, it’s equally unwise to pretend that the content of a religious tradition is a matter of complete indifference. They’ve tried that experiment in Europe and the results have been disastrous …

“Can’t happen here? It can and it will unless we rid ourselves of the notion that religions are interchangeable. Nothing facilitates jihad like naiveté. And one of our biggest blind spots is the failure to recognize that different religious beliefs can and do result in radically different cultures.” (Emphasis added.)

In response to the “invasion” of Europe by Middle Easterners, Syrians and others, recently The Washington Post reported:

“‘They’re not refugees. This is an invasion,’ said Bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo, whose dominion stretches across the southern reaches of this predominantly Catholic nation. ‘They come here with cries of Allahu Akbar. They want to take over.’

“The bishop’s stark language reflects a broader spiritual struggle in Europe over how to respond to a burgeoning flow of predominantly Muslim men, women and children into a largely Christian continent.”

The New York Times reported that the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said:

“‘Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims,’ Mr. Orban wrote in a commentary for Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung, a German newspaper. ‘This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian?’ Mr. Orban asked. ‘There is no alternative, and we have no option but to defend our borders’.”

Analyzing a poignant insight into how Islam in America has become a privileged religion, Daniel Greenfield maintains:

“… legally speaking it [Islam] actually enjoys all of the advantages of race, religion and culture with none of the disadvantages.  … The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

“Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

“By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist. … Islam is a theocracy. When it leaves the territories conquered by Islam, it seeks to replicate that theocracy through violence and by adapting the legal codes of the host society to suit its purposes. …

“Religions in America traded theocracy for religious freedom. They gave up being able to impose their practices on others in exchange for being able to freely practice their own religions. Islam rejects religious freedom. It exploits it to remove the freedom of belief and practice of others. When it cannot do so through religious protection laws, it does so through claims of bigotry. …

“By combining race, religion and culture, it replicates the building blocks of its theocracy within our legal and social spaces.” (Emphasis added.)

United We Stand

United we stand, divided we fall. Heard that before? In the New Testament, Mark 3:25 says, “And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Reality testifies that when a family has two different sets of mores, or foundational understandings, they clash. This holds true in a nation. That is why a constitution is so important and why the worldviews of the people matter. Whatever one believes drives their actions.

“Founding Father John Dickinson in his pre-Revolutionary War song ‘The Liberty Song’, first published in the Boston Gazette in July 1768 … wrote: ‘Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall!’

In March 1799 … Patrick Henry declaimed, ‘Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall’.”

The guiding principle of war is “divide and conquer.” Its opposite is unity. Why is unity important, and especially unity of foundational understandings? A free nation, in particular, relies upon self-government, which in turn is determined by what each citizen believes and understands as their role. When a nation becomes divided, it teeters.

Is the Current Policy Dangerous?

Michael McCaul (R-TX) said, “I have to be concerned as chairman of Homeland Security about the safety of Americans in this country. And the concern that I have and that the FBI testified to is that we don’t really have the proper databases on these individuals [Syrians] to vet them passed and to assure we’re not allowing terrorists to come into this country, and until I have that assurance, I cannot support a program that could potentially bring jihadists into the United States.”

Newsweek noted on November 21, 2014:

“Nothing has come in for more mockery during the Obama administration’s halting steps into the Syrian civil war than its employment of “moderate” to describe the kind of rebels it is willing to back.  … Jon Stewart cracked, ‘Not everyone is going to be wearing their ‘HELLO I’M A TERRORIST’ name badge.’

“Behind the jokes, however, is the deadly serious responsibility of the CIA and Defense Department to vet Syrians before they receive covert American training, aid and arms. But according to U.S. counterterrorism veterans, a system that worked pretty well during four decades of the Cold War has been no match for the linguistic, cultural, tribal, and political complexities of the Middle East, especially now in Syria. ‘We’re completely out of our league,’ one former CIA vetting expert declared on condition of anonymity, reflecting the consensus of intelligence professionals with firsthand knowledge of the Syrian situation. ‘To be really honest, very few people know how to vet well. It’s a very specialized skill. It’s extremely difficult to do well’ in the best of circumstances, the former operative said. And in Syria it has proved impossible.”

February 6, 2015, the St. Louis Division of the FBI released the following:

WASHINGTON—… a federal indictment was unsealed earlier today charging six individuals with terrorist related crimes. Charged in the indictment are: Ramiz Zijad Hodzic, 40, his wife Sedina Unkic Hodzic, 35, and Armin Harcevic, 37, all of St. Louis County, Missouri; Nihad Rosic, 26, of Utica, New York; Mediha Medy Salkicevic, 34 of Schiller Park, Illinois; and Jasminka Ramic, 42, of Rockford, Illinois. All defendants are charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists, and with providing material support to terrorists. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic and Nihad Rosic are also charged with conspiring to kill and maim persons in a foreign country. All six individuals are natives of Bosnia who immigrated to the United States. Three have become naturalized citizens of the United States and the remaining three have either refugee or legal resident status. Five of the defendants are in the United States and have been arrested. A sixth HELLO defendant is overseas

Gary Bauer pointed out in mid September that “according to one U.N. report, 72% of the ‘refugees’ are men. That is totally different from any refugee experience in modern history.” Two days later he noted, “The Lebanese education minister told Cameron [England’s Prime Minister] that two out of every 100 Syrian migrants are ISIS fighters being sent ‘under cover’ to attack the West. ‘It’s a very dangerous situation and the world should wake up and do something about that,’ Elias Bousaab said. ‘ISIS will not stop at the border with Lebanon.’”34 (Emphasis added.)

Lest Americans forget, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the young men who set off a terrorist attack of pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon in 2013, were political refugees only ten years earlier.

Raymond Ibrahim is a first generation Coptic Egyptian and university lecturer, including the National Defense Intelligence College. He has briefed governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency. In addition, he is a CBN News contributor, author and fellow at the Middle East Forum. He warns:

Because of their historical experiences with Islam, some central and eastern European nations are aware of Muslim aspirations. Hungary’s prime minister even cited his nation’s unpleasant past under Islamic rule (in the guise of the Ottoman Empire) as reason to disallow Muslim refugees from entering. …”

On September 16, Gyorgy Bakondi (security advisor to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Ouban) said in response to a migrant border crossing incident, “Police also captured an identified terrorist.”

Ibrahim continues, “The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that Muslims are now entering the West, unfettered, in the guise of refugees who refuse to assimilate with the ‘infidels’ and who form enclaves, or in Islamic terminology, ribats – frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other … The Islamic State is intentionally driving the refugee phenomenon and has promised to send half a million people – mostly Muslin – into Europe. It claims that 4,000 of these refugees are its own operatives: ‘Just wait. … It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah’ [Allah willing].”37 (Emphasis added.)

Dr. Kilpatrick raises the question of whether our constitutional and Judeo-Christian foundations can survive in a world where Sharia is accorded moral equivalency. Robert Spencer took it a step farther warning of the religion’s appeal to current American culture where purpose and a-life-of-meaning have been eradicated by an educational and media establishment fiercely committed to removing all semblances of Christianity while spinning Islam as peaceful.

“People aren’t attracted to fighting in Syria or Iraq because they’re Arab nationalists or Syrian-Australian dual citizens or would-be humanitarian workers or because it’s cool. They’re attracted because it gives them a sense of empowerment through their religious identity. Recruiters portray such jihad as part of a distorted sense of religious obligation, and social media is awash with religious references to the fighting. …”

What is the Cost?

“The Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Annual Report to Congress for FY2013 reveals that nearly three in four refugees were on food stamps. Additionally, nearly half were on some form of cash assistance and more than a half were on medical assistance. More than 20 percent were on Supplemental Security Income, more than 22 percent were in public housing and nearly 20 percent were on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The report noted that many households received more than one type of assistance and the data dealt with refugees who arrived in the U.S. between March 1, 2008, to February 28, 2013.”

In September, further data was released:

According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)— chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest — in FY 2013,

• 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps.
• 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance.
• 68.3 percent were on cash welfare

“Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).

“The high welfare rates among Middle Eastern refugees comes as the Obama administration considers increasing the number of refugees – who are immediately eligible for public benefits – to the U.S., particularly Syrian refugees.”

Who is Behind the Current Push to Change America?

Space restrictions prohibit the documentation of the multiple private organizations and government agencies committed to remaking America into a socialist one-world government. However, in the issue of immigration some of the impetus comes from organizations working to allow migration between all nations, essentially removing all national boarders. Among them is George Soros’s Open Society (formerly Institute) Foundation, founded in 1993.

George Soros’ Open Society

“The term ‘open society’ had been originally coined in 1932 by the French philosopher Henri Louis Bergson to describe societies whose moral codes were founded upon ‘universal’ principles seeking to enhance the welfare of all mankind—as opposed to ‘closed’ societies that placed self-interest above any concern for other nations and cultures.  … any belief system or individual claiming to be in possession of ‘ultimate truth’ was an ‘enemy’ of the open society as well. … In his book Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros explains that the ‘open society’, which he has consistently sought to advance by means of philanthropy, ‘stands for freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, social justice, and social responsibility as a universal idea.’ …”

According to David Horowitz’s, Discover the Network, a few of the groups funded by Soros that relate to the immigration issues are:

• “The National Immigration Forum opposes the enhancement of the U.S. Border Patrol and the construction of a border fence to prevent illegal immigration.
• “The National Immigration Law Center works to help low-income immigrants gain access to governmentfunded welfare programs on the same basis as legal American citizens.

Horowitz points out that according “to George Soros, ‘[W]e need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy.’ Consistent with this perspective, the Open Society Institute in 2008 gave $150,000 to the United Nations Foundation, which ‘works to broaden support for the UN through advocacy and public outreach.’ Moreover, OSI is considered a ‘major‘ funder of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which aims to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures in certain cases to an international prosecutor who could initiate capricious or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials and military officers.”

St. Louis Council of Islamic Relations CAIR

“Faizan Syed, executive director of the St. Louis chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the U.S. should accept far more Syrians than is being proposed. ‘We believe the United States should resettle 65,000 Syrians to America and specifically to St. Louis,’ he said.”43 Their website is keeping the project going:

“The march may be over but now the real work begins. We invite you help us launch a nationwide campaign to #BringThemHere________ (every city in America). This will involve organizing, advocacy, putting pressure on elected officials, launching social service wing, funding, and much more. STL will be the center for this new campaign, but it will only work with your help. Join us for the first organizing meeting on Saturday, October 3rd at 6:30 p.m., Dar-Al-Jalal Islamic Center (8945 Dunn Road, Hazelwood Missouri 63042).”

CAIR was listed as one of the unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation federal terrorist case and has been listed by Egypt as a terrorist organization.

Fox News reported that “the shooting and subsequent protests have already drawn in a host of Muslim groups, including a committee that calls itself ‘The Palestinian Contingent, which includes CAIR and seeks to ‘focus on a target highlighting intersections of militarized policing in Ferguson and Palestine’.”

What Can Be Done?

Of course, there are Muslims who want to live peacefully and would make good neighbors. Nevertheless, there is the preponderance of documentation about the overall history of the last fourteen hundred years of Islam’s efforts to conquer the world, as well as the nightly news coverage of the hatred of all things not Muslim by the brutal beheadings, rapes, crucifixions, slave markets, stonings, honor killings, and seven-year old boys being used as suicide bombers or executioners. How do we reconcile these issues?

We lead with what we know to be our own JudeoChristian heritage of “be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove” as we “love our neighbor as ourselves.” (Matthew   10:16b and Mark  12:31) This starts with committing to learning more about the tenets of Islam through the Quran, the Hadith and through history. It also means learning more about the exceptionalism of the Judeo/Christian Western civilization and the American founding principles. That does not mean there have not been abuses; rather it means seeking the good to pass on and having a balance, which is now lacking, especially in the textbooks and the public sector institutions.

We must be a part of our communities and attend local council meetings, meet and know our councilmen and state representatives and pay attention to what is happening. We can provide an alternative, common sense opposition.

“Know thyself” means understanding what you believe and being able to explain it to others. Since America is not assimilating, but only integrating refugees that are predominantly Muslim, this is a good place to start. How do we start assimilating them?

1. Teach the new arrivals what made America free using our founding principles and documents.
2. Volunteer to become an “English as a Second Language” teacher.
3. Explain how Christianity allows the individual to reach for the stars and frees them from servitude.
4. Show them why together these attributes of America have produced the most exceptional, beneficial society in the history of the world.

This needs to start with our schools, churches and civic institutions. Being involved in community outreach of some form often allows contact with the new arrivals. Persuade your community leaders of the importance of making Americans out of the newly arrived, instead of settling for integration, which only develops into conflict over ways the community should operate.

Talk show host Dennis Prager pegged it:

The three pillars of Americanism, constituting what I have called the ‘American Trinity’ — are found on every American coin and banknote: ‘Liberty,’ ‘In God We Trust’ and ‘e pluribus unum.’ The latter is Latin for “out of many, one.” Because America has always been a nation of immigrants, it has no ethnic identity. Therefore, unlike almost all other nations, America could not depend on an ethnic identity to keep its people together. In fact, if all Americans retained their ethnic identities, America would simply splinter.”

Why Your Speaking Out CAN Make the Difference!

Former intelligence officer and expert on soviet propaganda, Stella Moribito, emphatically stated WHY each of us speaking out CAN make the difference. She mentions three constructive “possibilities of people who have the courage to be politically incorrect against the dominant narratives in this culture. First, such a neighbor or friend could embolden a like-minded person who is fearful, causing a positive ‘ripple effect.’ Second, they could influence a ‘fence-sitter’ by nudging deeper thinking, she says. And lastly, even if the listener disagrees and rejects your point of view, you may water down the stereotype or caricature made of those who hold core American principles.

Our power comes by NOT keeping silent!