In this mailing: George Igler: The True Cost of Europe's Muslim "Enrichment" Lawrence A. Franklin: Iran: Nuclear Deal Going, Going, Gone? The True Cost of Europe's Muslim "Enrichment" by George Igler  •  November 18, 2015 at 5:00 am The United Nations, in 2000, advocated the "replacement" of Europe's population by Muslim migrants. There seems to be an economic premise underlying this view: that importing the Muslim world en masseinto Europe is mutually beneficial. For decades, the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has been labelled "enrichment." Shouting "Islamophobia" does not negate how it is virtually impossible to think of a country actually made richer by it. Even in a country with an established Islamic population such as Britain, Muslim unemployment languishes at 50% for men, and 75% for women. Those using an economic rationale to implement Europe's demographic transformation fail to recognize the complexities of Islam: they ignore the fundamentalist revival that has been ongoing for over a century. One feature of this growing embrace of literalism is a belief -- validated by scripture -- that Muslims are entitled to idly profit from the productivity of infidels. The idea that with time, Islam's religious tenets will somehow moderate and dissolve, merely by being lodged in Europe, is wishful thinking, especially in communities where Muslim migrants already outnumber indigenous Europeans. The "blind eye" turned towards polygamy in Britain, France, Belgium and Germany has ensured that some Muslim men have upwards of 20 children by multiple wives, almost always at state expense. This suggests that families with fundamentalist views are outbreeding their more moderate coreligionists. Anjem Choudary (center), a prominent British Islamist, has urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so they could have time to plot holy war. "We [Muslims] take the Jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money." The word "refugee" is a legal term, one defined by several international treaties. These documents brought the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) into existence, and sustain the relevance of the United Nations agency responsible for refugees to this day. The contents of these treaties, however, sit oddly with how the UNHCR has comprehensively sought to hoodwink the European public about the predominant status of the demographic influx into their continent this year. None of these documents -- the 1951 Refugee Convention; the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, or the EU's own Dublin Regulations -- grants the right of refugee status to those traversing several safe countries, and illegally crossing multiple borders, to shop for the best welfare state. Continue Reading Article  Iran: Nuclear Deal Going, Going, Gone? by Lawrence A. Franklin  •  November 18, 2015 at 4:00 am Iranian military commanders, security chiefs and conservative media outlets are coming close to questioning the competence and loyalty of those in the Iranian regime who favor the JCPOA. The surreal irony, of course, is that President Obama keeps assuring the world -- as recently as last week again, when he met with Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu -- that he is "preventing" Iran from getting nuclear weapons, while the truth is that his "deal" -- if the Iranians ever sign it -- not only green-lights Iran's nuclear program, but in fact finances it. Iran's hardliners are pressing their attack on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which has not yet been approved by Iran. Iran's opponents of the JCPOA have succeeded in halting any steps toward implementation of Tehran's responsibilities under the July14 settlement reached in Vienna by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the US, the UK, France, China and Russia, plus Germany (the so-called P5+1). But who appointed them? While some reports indicated that Iran was beginning to take off the production line some of the uranium-enrichment centrifuges in the Natanz and Fordow facilities, contradictory reports suggested that any such action was halted due to pressure from Iran's hardliners, and that dismantling the centrifuges had not been authorized by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and was therefore premature. Another report suggested that only a small number of outdated centrifuges had been decommissioned. Continue Reading Article