Interview: Is There a Place for Muslims in the West?

By Victor Thorn —

According to some estimates, over 1 million Muslim refugees are expected to flood across Europe’s borders this year, many from war-torn Syria. Already, 2,000 makeshift migrant camps have been established in Germany alone to handle this influx. Those who capitalize on Europe’s open-door policies often obtain illegally forged documents, pay human smugglers to sneak them into a country, or simply game the system.

On September 22 AMERICAN FREE PRESS interviewed author and journalist Frosty Wooldridge, who focused on the financial impact of this situation.

“Over 80% of all Muslims in Sweden and Norway are living on welfare,” he said. “These people from third world countries possess no skills, and what they do is begin a process of chain migration, which means each immigrant brings in 10 relatives. Providing this amount of welfare and cradling Muslims in their economic system will destroy the system. You’ll see entire European cities debt ridden to the point of collapse.”

Wooldridge continued: “These migrants are fracturing Europe, especially since most have no desire to assimilate. As I wrote in a recent article, any culture that will not defend itself against multiculturalism guarantees its own suicide. The more diverse a country, the more destructive and broken down is its future. When you consider cyclical poverty among Muslims for generations, who’ll pay all the welfare to these people once European civilization has culturally collapsed?”

European authorities are deliberately covering up the impact of a Muslim crime wave by concealing the statistics, particularly for those in squatter camps. Here, not only does disease run rampant, but so do illegitimate pregnancies, which significantly bolster Muslim birthrates compared to those of white Europeans.

Acknowledging these shocking statistics, Wooldridge commented: “With this Muslim invasion, we’re in the midst of a calamity. In France, there are over 70 ‘no-go’ zones that Europeans are afraid to enter because sharia dominates. In the UK, there’s an English London and a Muslim London, and no Brits will go into the Muslim section of town for fear of their lives.”

The threats don’t stop in Europe. With United States officials now agreeing to accept tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, Wooldridge added: “Barack Obama’s unstated agenda is to import as many Muslims into America as he can. Did you know that Obama has 13 Muslim advisors in the White House? Obama wants to seed our country with Muslims and Islamic followers of the Koran. He’s the main change agent of bringing Muslims and sharia to America.”

The consequences of such a move are already apparent. “Look at the spread of so-called honor killings that have been perpetrated by Muslims,” said Wooldridge. “In Georgia, a Pakistani immigrant strangled his 25-year-old daughter to death because she wouldn’t accept his choice for a prearranged husband. A Muslim man in Buffalo beheaded his wife simply because she filed for divorce. In Phoenix, a Muslim father ran over his 20-year-old daughter with a car because, according to him, she had become too ‘Westernized.’ ”

Putting the entire phenomenon into perspective, Wooldridge asked, “Do we want our country to become even more fractured along religious and sociological lines? I can say that opening the doors to more Muslims in this country and Europe will bring with it much more disruption. It’s evident in everything we see across the globe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel herself admitted that multiculturalism has failed. This is our country, and if we don’t stand up and say something and do something, we’re going to lose it.”

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and author of over 50 books.

Was Ben Carson Right?

• A man’s religion is fair game for discussion when he runs for president.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Beliefs matter.

“Ideas Have Consequences,” as conservative scholar Richard Weaver wrote in his classic of that title in 1948. Yet, for so believing, and so saying, presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson has been subjected to a Rodney King-style night-sticking by the P.C. police.

Asked by Chuck Todd on the Sunday morning talk show “Meet the Press” whether he could support a Muslim for president, Carson replied, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Carson was not out of the studio before the airwaves were filled with denunciations.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said CAIR is calling on Carson to “withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

In the name of tolerance, says CAIR, we cannot tolerate Carson.

And what does the Constitution say? “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

But Carson did not say no Muslim could serve. He said he would not advocate having a Muslim as president, that Islamic beliefs are inconsistent with the Constitution.

Is he wrong?

Or is it now impermissible to question a candidate’s beliefs about God, man and the state, and about whether his religious convictions might affect his conduct in office?

A man’s religion is a part of who he is. While not an infallible guide to what he will do, it is often a reliable road map.

If Mormons still championed polygamy and declared that blacks could not be Mormons, would it be illegitimate to raise that issue?

Should a Quaker who believes in “turning the other cheek” not be pressed on whether his faith disqualifies him to be commander in chief?

If an Evangelical running for president believes the “end times” are at hand, would it be un-American to ask of the Armageddonite if his religious beliefs might affect his decision on war in the Middle East?

Islam means “submission.” And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the prophet.

That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.

Anyone recall a collective protest from the Islamic world when that Afghan convert to Christianity was facing an executioner’s ax?

Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society.

Is sharia consistent with the Constitution? Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject sharia for America, i.e., apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Koran?

Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Koran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?

From the Maghreb to the Middle and Near East, in almost every society where Islam is the dominant faith, repression appears the rule.

Of the near 50 nations where Islam is the majority religion, where is the constitutional republic that resembles our own?

Carson says he would not support turning the Armed Forces of the United States over to a follower of a faith whose co-religionists have produced the modern Middle East. Why is that bigotry? Is Islam wholly disconnected to the horrors transpiring there?

Islam has bloody borders, observed Dr. Samuel Huntington. Of the ugliest terrorist organizations of which we daily read—Boko Haram, al Qaeda, ISIS, the al-Nusra Front, al-Shabaab—are not most of them proudly Muslim?

Given the sectarian war between the Shiites led by Iran and the Sunni led by the Saudis, would it violate the Constitution to ask our Muslim presidential candidate to which of these two he belonged? Dr. Russell Kirk called ideology “political religion.”

Undeniably, Muslims have proven to be good American patriots, as did the Christians and the Jews who came before them.

But in Europe today, we see hundreds of thousands of Muslims pouring in, adding to the millions there, and they are all not assimilating.

Those elites who say they would be fine with a Muslim president are probably dissembling. Because that is the politically correct thing to say; it makes them feel superior; and no such candidate is in sight.

Indeed, the same elites who call it outrageous that Carson said a Muslim should not be president are the first and loudest to decry any suggestion that our current president is a Muslim.

Liberals like the idea of a Muslim president—in the abstract.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate and author.