Critics of Germany's open-door immigration policy are warning that the recent surge in Germany's Muslim population — which surpassed six million in 2016 for the first time — has already changed the face of the country forever.
The price for reversing Germany's demographic decline appears to be the further Islamization of Germany under the guise of multiculturalism.
With a fertility rate of 1.6 births per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1, Germany will require a permanent influx of 300,000 migrants per year in order keep the current population level stable through the year 2060, according to the report.
"We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law. German security agencies are unable to deal with these imported security problems, and the resulting reactions from the German population." — Leaked German intelligence document.
More than a decade ago historian Bernard Lewis warned that if current migration trends continue, Europe will be Islamic by the end of the 21st century. Germany's political elites are at the vanguard of making that prediction come true.
Out with the old, in with the new...
Germany will need to take in 300,000 migrants annually for the next 40 years to stop population decline, according to a leaked government report.
The document, parts of which were published by the Rheinische Post on February 1, reveals that the German government is counting on permanent mass migration — presumably from Africa, Asia and the Middle East — to keep the current size of the German population (82.8 million) stable through 2060.
The report implies that Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow into the country some 1.5 million mostly Muslim migrants between 2015 and 2016 was not primarily a humanitarian gesture, but a calculated effort to stave off Germany's demographic decline and to preserve the future viability of the German welfare state.
A variety of groups ascribe to the Islamist objective of imposing their politicized beliefs on others. Included in these are ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, the largest and best organized of all the Islamist groups is the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the well-spring from which the Islamist ideology flows.
The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, stated that "It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."
A bill, introduced by Senator Ted Cruz, to have the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a terrorist group would have far-reaching impact, and be the single greatest blow stuck against Islamist extremism in the USA.
The Muslim Brotherhood operating in the U.S. made it clear that "their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The North Atlantic Islamic Trust, according to former FBI Agent Robert Stauffer, "served as a financial holding company for Muslim Brotherhood-related groups." This money was wired into the U.S. from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Libya.
The emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its founder, Hassan al-Banna.
Muslims living in the United States likely have little to fear from the Trump Administration and the 115th Congress. By contrast, Islamists living in the United States have grounds to be worried.
A bill introduced by Senator Ted Cruz to have the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a terrorist group could have far-reaching implications, many of which have received little public attention. The bill, if acted upon, would be the single greatest blow stuck against Islamist extremism in the USA. It would also have far reaching impact in Canada and elsewhere.
The Trump Administration needs to see to it that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is rendered null and void.
UNSC Resolution 2334 also implies that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are all occupied territory, when in fact, it was Israel that liberated them from the illegal Jordanian conquest of them in the war of 1948.
Given the history of violence which the Palestinians indulge in against the Jews, it would seem a counter-productive precedent to reward decades of terrorism and uncivilised behaviour with a state. It would also leave the Palestinians, who deserve a responsible and accountable leadership, under the domination of two corrupt and brutal governments, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.
A study of the various proposals Israel has made to Palestine from time to time shows the key obstacle to peace is not the Palestinians' demand for any piece of land but their refusal to recognize the existence of the Jewish state, or presumably any state but an Islamic one.
The U.S. could also move its embassy to Jerusalem. This would send the Palestinian leadership and others in the region a strong message that Washington will support both historical facts and countries that comport themselves with civilised behaviour.
Nikki Haley (pictured above from 2014), President Trump's appointment to the United Nations, has already condemned UN Security Council Resolution 2334 as an "outrageous bias" against Israel. (Image source: defenseimagery.mil)
In the long-continuing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, conventional wisdom has it that peace can be achieved through realistic negotiations between the parties to the conflict.
The previous Obama administration displayed a clear tilt towards one party to the conflict, the Palestinians, at the cost of the other, Israel.
Last month, Washington's abstention from voting on United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 led to its passage. This resolution condemns Israeli settlements in "Palestinian Occupied Territories." Resolution 2334 also implies that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are all occupied territory, when in fact, it was Israel that liberated them from the illegal Jordanian conquest of them in the war of 1948. The resolution effectively states that any Jewish presence beyond the 1949 armistice lines, or Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem, is illegal.