The latest mantra from the political gurus of the radical left is that the release of the long-anticipated report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller is just the beginning of the efforts by the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. With the intentions to delve into the matter of criminal collusion and obstruction of justice – and any number of other fishing-expedition investigations currently being teed up by Democrats.
Sadly for the institution of American journalism, the anti-Trump news media is embracing this latest partisan-driven narrative as if it is factual news – just as they so eagerly and as speciously embraced and advanced the false narrative of criminal collusion and obstruction of justice throughout the 23-month Mueller investigation.
The liberal partisans in the Fourth Estate are using what is left of their tattered reputations and declining credibility (according to polls about which they do not report) to double down on the same bogus narrative they dishonestly proffered for more than two years.
Despite the Mueller conclusions that there was no improper (illegal) coordination between President Trump and Russian operatives and insufficient evidence to establish obstruction, the crazed left is continuing to claim that Trump DID criminally collude and most certainly committed the crime of obstruction.
Keep in mind that these are the same folks who promised to – but did not – wait for the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, and promised to – but did not – accept Mueller’s findings.
They opine that any ordinary person would most certainly have been indicted on any one of the points Mueller cited in his Report. If that is true – and we have no reason to believe that it is – God helps save the common person from the scary power of professional prosecutors.
The Resistance Movement media inconsistently argues (nothing new there) that the only reason Mueller did not bring prosecutorial charges against Trump is that it is “a very high bar.” Really? The general view has long been that thanks to the grand jury system, a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, the diminutive radical left socialist chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is promising to hold hearings on every aspect of Trump’s political, business and personal life for the next two years. He has already started the process of issuing subpoenas with machine-gun rapidity. Not since emperors presided over the games in the Roman Coliseum has a political figure promised a greater public spectacle for the sole purposes of political gain and self-aggrandizement.
To pick up on President Lincoln’s language, the left-leaning media came very close to fooling all the people some of the time with their prolonged false narratives against Trump and Russia. They continue to fool some of the people all of the time – the so-called Resistance Movement folks and maybe themselves. But thanks to Mueller, they cannot continue to fool all the people all the time. But … that is exactly what they think they can do by re-investigating the same issues – plus whatever else they can conjure up.
The lust for impeachment courses through the veins of the Democratic Party despite the efforts of saner and more pragmatic leaders – including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – to derail the notion because it is likely to backfire. So far that has not stopped the clamor for impeachment and most certainly has not dissuaded people like Nadler from wanting to produce the most prominent political circus since … the Clinton impeachment fiasco.
Democrats obsessed with impeachment may discover that the only “beginning” to be noted at this time is the beginning of the end of their political support among the American people.
So, there ‘tis.
The vast majority of “asylum seekers” are here illegally. That is not the narrative that Democrats and the left-wing propaganda press is pressing. They say that when a person crosses our border – through points of entry or by pole vaulting border walls (where they might exist) – they can LEGALLY request asylum and remain in the United States until their request is adjudicated. That is the meaning of “catch and release.” What is missing is the expeditious vetting process. Given the numbers of border crossers and the loooooong delays between entering and court hearings, there essentially is no vetting.
That means that anyone – with the exception of a relatively few known criminals – who claims to be endangered back home gets admitted. There is no requirement of proof. By the Democrats misrepresentation of the law, most of the 26 million folks who reside in America without official approval are LEGAL – a least by their strained definition.
That is simply not true. First of all, the millions who never showed up for their vetting hearing are automatically ILLEGAL. Second, all those who came here with legal visas – workers, students, visitors – and did not leave are also ILLEGAL. As Democrats like to point out, those overstaying visas comprise a high percentage of the illegals in this country.
So, what about the hundreds of thousands – maybe now millions – claiming asylum?
Based on history and current statistics, most of them are NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ASYLUM. This is the dirty little secret that Democrats and their media friends do not like to discuss or report. Over the longer period, the actual records show that up to 80 percent of those requesting asylum are ineligible. Think about that. Democrats do not care if the folks claiming asylum are even eligible.
Current numbers at the border show that 76 percent of those from Honduras who are seeking asylum are not eligible. That is true of 75 percent coming from Guatemala, 68 percent from El Salvatore and 61 percent from Mexico.
Some of those folks may have been misled into believing that anyone crossing the U.S. border and claiming asylum is automatically accepted. And why not? Democrats and the new media have been pushing that false narrative 24/7.
Many asylum seekers have been coached to make false claims and for another large group their requests are simply fraudulent. Technically, anyone in America today who is not eligible for asylum is an illegal alien.
In a previous public life – before his political lobotomy – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, railed against the very illegal border crossing that he now claims is neither illegal nor a crisis. In an earlier speech ignored by the liberal news media, Schumer blasted the use of the word “undocumented.” He emphatically insisted that we call them … “illegal aliens.”
What is going on at our border is a multifaceted crisis. It is a human crisis because tens of thousands of people are suffering and many dying on the trail to the border, and by crimes against Americans committed by the criminal element who use the caravans as a modern-day Trojan Horse.
It is a political crisis because it has kept our leaders impotently divided on the issue for generations. The failure to recognize the problem and to fix it has a very simple cause. Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have used immigration as a political weapon – and neither side wants to give up that partisan political weapon for the sake of the country.
President Reagan made a run at it and offered amnesty in return for border security. Congressional Democrats approved of the amnesty but reneged on border security. President Clinton made a feeble run at it but gave up in the face of congressional inaction from his own party. Those were the days when most of the top Democrats paid lip service to border security. Their comments in those days sounded like Trump today.
President Obama promised that immigration reform would be his first priority – but he gave it no priority whatsoever throughout his eight years in office. President Trump is the first President to push hard for border security as the first element of immigration reform – trying to avoid what happened to Reagan — but has been rebuffed by Congress in a shameful display of bipartisan inaction. One can fault Trump for his pugnacious style but one cannot say he is not seriously working on the issue of REAL immigration reform.
The New York Post has hit back hard with a scathing rebuke of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., following her recent comments on the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
The dramatic front page of the Thursday, April 11 edition featured an infamous photo of New York City’s Twin Towers on fire on the day of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 Americans. The text accompanying the gut-wrenching image read:
“Rep. Ilhan Omar: 9/11 was ‘some people did something.’”
“Here’s your something: 2,977 people dead by terrorism.”
The bottom of the cover read in small captioning, “Omar outraged the families of 9/11 victims by referring dismissively to the terrorist attacks while speaking to a Muslim lobbying group.”
“Some People Did Something”
The Post was referring to Omar’s recent comments at the Council of American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] fundraiser last month when she called upon other Muslim-Americans to “make people uncomfortable” with their activism. However, another part of the speech surfaced on social media this week in which Omar described the terror attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda.
“CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” Omar said at the event.
Her comments prompted a response from Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, a former Navy SEAL who lost his right eye after being injured by an IED in Afghanistan.
“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something,’” Crenshaw wrote in a tweet. “Unbelievable.”
In an editorial that accompanied the striking cover, The Post stated, “Wow. What a way to describe the heinous surprise attack on America that claimed 3,000 lives. Especially when Omar’s focus was Muslim rights. That made it all the more vital to note that the terrorists acted in the name of Islam — as self-described ‘jihadists’ in a war against America, Israel and the West.”
“To call them merely ‘some people’ is to deny a cancer festering in the world Muslim community,” the editorial said.
The editorial went on to further criticize Omar for saying in her speech that there is an expectation that the Muslim community “needs to hide every time something happens.”
“Again, by ‘something happens,’” the editorial states, “she means (but won’t say) when Muslims commit acts of terror, no one expects Muslims to ‘hide’ after an attack by Islamist terrorists. No group should be blamed for the deeds of a few of its members. But defeating terrorism requires facing the facts of who’s behind it and why.”
The editorial also pointed out that CAIR was formed in 1994, NOT after 9-11 as Omar said, and that they have been listed as “an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to steer US funds to the terror group Hamas.”
Omar, who became the first Somali-American elected to Congress in November, appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on Wednesday where her 9/11 comments were not addressed. The freshman congresswoman told the host she was still “learning” after she was accused of making an anti-Semitic remark in February.
“The whole process really has been one of growth for me, right,” she said. “I’m learning that everything is not as simple as we might think. As I’ve said to my constituents and my colleagues, when you tell me that you are pained by something I say, I will always listen and I will acknowledge your pain.”
As a Jew and a former New Yorker, all I can say is “Hey Omar – acknowledge this!”
On first blush, I expect most Americans would look at the headline and say, “Are you kidding?” Well … sort of, but not entirely.
I have always had total disdain for the National Enquirer and all those other fake news tabloids that you see at the check-out counter.
They wallow in the underbelly of journalism – if you are even inclined to place them even on the periphery of the profession. I cannot recall ever buying one and they were never seen in my home.
In hyping their upcoming “Headliner” show on the Enquirer with Ari Melber, MSNBC set the tone of the show by alleging that the Enquirer was “weaponized” by Trump to go on an unrelenting attack against his opponents in the Republican primaries and against Hillary Clinton in the General Election.
According to them, the Enquirer made no attempt to be fair and balanced – or even have a smidgeon of news sympathetic to Trump’s opponents.
MSNBC promised to expose what they see as unrelenting one-side reporting of dubious stories that played to Trump’s favor. In a very real sense, MSNBC contends that David Pecker ran his publication as a propaganda vehicle for the Trump campaign.
Did the Enquirer go all in for Trump in the 2016 campaign? Well duh! Just a perusal of the frontpages – and that is as far as I ever got – made the bias perfectly clear. It was an unabashed Trump publication for sure.
As I watched the MSNBC promos for their look at the Enquirer, that symbolic lightbulb in the head lit up. Imagine, I thought, a self-proclaimed journalistic outfit using their platform to support one side of the political partisan divide. Suddenly, the word “hypocrisy” jumped into my mind.
Doesn’t MSNBC use their platform to support only one side of the political partisan divide? It may be fair to say that the NBC News offspring is not as sensationalistic as the Enquirer.
But maybe – just maybe — they are more dangerous because their service as a propaganda vehicle for the progressive faction of the Democratic Party is less obvious to those in their audience.
Sadly, there are a lot of well-intentioned and good people who are taken in by MSNBC reporting. Some of my closest friends are MSNBC-ophiles. As is typical of so many on the left, they refuse to discuss politics – largely because they cannot defend their positions.
It is that old liberalism being faith-based as opposed to fact-based. Many use anger as a defensive exit from intelligent conversations – you know, that civil dialogue we are supposed to have in a free society.
If a person only reads the Enquirer, they would have a limited and distorted view of reality. I would argue that the same is true of people who only get their news and political information from MSNBC. They are as ill-informed as those who follow the Enquirer.
It is not just a matter of opinion. Anyone who cares to take the effort can empirically establish MSNBC’s bias – and to a lesser extent, CNN’s – can see the biases.
Like it or not, FOX News offers more variety in its news and on controversial topics is more like to have legitimate analysts on both sides of an issue.
That is just an evident fact. You can watch MSNBC all day and hardly find anyone who presents counterpoints to their preconceived partisan narratives – with emphasis on anti-Trumpism and constant attacks on the Republican Brand and conservatives.
If you look only at political bias – as opposed to sensationalism – you will find the MSNBC is as one-sided as Enquirer.
They are, as we say, two peas in a pod. The television networks distorted political narratives are only slightly more credible than the Enquirer’s obvious fake stories. The problem is that the Enquirer is widely recognized as a trash publication that prints outrageously fake news, whereas MSNBC purports to be a legitimate news service – which they are not – and a lot of people actually are taken in by their propaganda.
Think of all those reports claiming that there is evidence that Trump is guilty of Russian collusion. Or all those reports about Trump firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. All the times they mischaracterize Trump’s statements – which you would not know if you did not surf the other news outlets.
Both the Enquirer and MSNBC are members-in-good-standing of the propaganda press – spinning their false narratives as factual reporting. No objective consumer of news would ever rely on them as a single source – are even a source at all.
So, there ‘tis.
President Donald J. Trump held his first rally since being exonerated by the Mueller probe to huge cheering crowds in Michigan. The President took the stage before a loud and lively full house at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, where he proceeded to tear into Democrats and the FBI as unintelligent “frauds” who tried desperately to undermine the results of the 2016 election.
“The Democrats have to now decide whether they will continue defrauding the public with ridiculous bullshit partisan investigations, or whether they will apologize to the American people,” Trump said to thunderous applause.
Trump continued to unload on his opponents, “I have a better education than them, I’m smarter than them, I went to the best schools; they didn’t. Much more beautiful house, much more beautiful apartment. Much more beautiful everything. And I’m president and they’re not.”
Addressing counter-protesters outside the arena and leftist progressives in general, Trump asked, “What do you think of their signs, ‘Resist?’ What the hell? Let’s get something done.”
Winners and Losers
Totally in his element among the roars of the adoring crowd, Trump vowed to “close the damn border” unless Mexico halts two new caravans he said have been approaching the United States rapidly. Trump also hit at fraudulent asylum applicants, saying liberal lawyers often have coached them in a “big fat con job” to claim they’ve feared for their lives when they make it to the border.
The economy, Trump said to sustained cheers, “is roaring, the ISIS caliphate is defeated 100 percent, and after three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead. The collusion delusion is over. … The single greatest political hoax in the history of our country. And guess what? We won.”
Trump predicted that the former DOJ and FBI officials who pushed the collusion theory and authorized secret surveillance warrants against members of his campaign — whom he incidentally called “major losers” — would soon have “big problems.”
Trump also characterized the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee as “little pencil-neck Adam Schiff, who has the smallest, thinnest neck I’ve ever seen,” and someone who is “not a long-ball hitter.”
Schiff, D-Calif., who fiercely pushed collusion claims despite little evidence of the President’s involvement, has vowed to continue investigating Trump despite Mueller’s findings — even as Republicans have called for his resignation.
Trump’s rally prompted thousands of supporters to line the streets hours beforehand in a festive atmosphere that included vendors selling “Make America Great Again” hats and holding supportive signs.
As the president continued to lambast all of his usual opponents, he made it a point to take a jab at the Fake News noting with great satisfaction that MSNBC and CNN’s ratings “dropped through the floor last night,” while Fox News’ ratings were “through the roof.”
At the end of the rally, Trump remarked, “the Democrats took the people of Michigan for granted. With us, you will never be forgotten again.”
Several months ago, CNN launched a new segment called “Reality Check.” It features the smug John Avlon, who also regularly shares the anchor as the network’s Senior Political analyst. In other words, their on-set “yes man.”
Avlon came to CNN from the Daily Beast, where he was the head beast. In those days, he was one of those regular bobblehead “contributors.” Seriously. Every time a host or guest would make a derogatory comment about Trump, Republicans or conservatives, Avlon would give it his smarmy smile and his head would … well … bobble up and down.
He was so good at playing into CNN’s anti-Trump narratives that they hired him full time and gave him his own segment to present an anti-Trump prosecution brief on a regular basis. After each prejudicial presentation, anchors John Berman and Alisyn Camerota would bolster his biased offering with such statements as “That is really great information, John” or “You really bring out the fact so clearly” or “You really tell people what they need to know.”
Avlon builds his case against Trump with selective facts, agonizing interpretations of those facts – while leaving out facts that refute those he presents – and outright disinformation. His “Reality Check” is not meant to educate the public – or to tell both sides of a story. It is to indoctrinate along the lines of the network’s various political false narratives. In short, Avlon is CNN’s chief propagandist. He earns that title despite intense competition form many of the other on-air personalities in the CNN stable.
Avlon used his platform to defend the rise of socialism within the Democratic Party, his favored political entity – and to call out Trump, Republicans and FOX News for criticizing the authoritarian concept. He selected a dictionary definition of socialism as “economic and political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
That definition, in and of itself, should elicit condemnation of the political theory but he failed to complete the definition. It is also defined as “a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.” If you think that is not the ultimate goal, just listen to all those Democrats condemning capitalism these days.
Avlon claims that all those examples of failed socialism that brought deaths and misery at the hands of brutal despots is … old news. Since World War II, he says that world poverty rates have been cut in half – implying that it was due to the rise of socialism in a few countries. Based on a reality check, it would be more accurate to attribute the decline in poverty on capitalism – with nation’s like China and Russia taking on more capitalistic policies.
With the image of Senator Elizabeth Warren in the background, Avalon takes it upon himself to say that free college tuition and government-run healthcare is NOT socialism. He segues into class warfare with an attack on those Senator Bernie Sanders dubs “the one-percenters.”
Avlon goes on to criticize Republicans for “crying wolf” over socialism. He points out that Social Security and Medicare were decried as socialist when they were proposed and now they are popular. Because they have become part of the American economic fabric – and have attained a level of popularity – does not mean that there were not steps toward socialism. They were.
In his conclusion, Avlon declares that criticism of socialism in America is merely “political hype.” Just what a good left-wing propagandist would say.
That is only one example of the type of biased reporting Avlon and CNN pass off as a reality check. Virtually every one of his segments could be refuted in a fact-based counter argument. But those facts are banned and censored by the folks at CNN and that is why their “Reality Check” is anything but …
So, there ‘tis
According to the summary released by Attorney General William Barr, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election found there was no conspiracy involving Donald Trump or his campaign.
“The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” read the four-page letter by Attorney General William Barr summarizing “principal conclusions” of Mueller’s investigation. The letter was sent to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees Sunday afternoon, two days after Mueller delivered the confidential report to Barr.
While Barr’s letter also drew no final conclusions about whether or not the president obstructed justice, President Trump and his legal team are taking the final report as a complete victory.
“After a long look, after a long investigation, after so many people have been so badly hurt, after not looking at the other side where a lot of bad things happened…it was just announced there was no collusion with Russia, the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,”
Trump told reporters before he boarded Air Force One in Palm Beach, Florida where he finally broke his silence days after the end of the two-year investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian government.
“It was a complete and total exoneration,” said Trump. “It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest it’s a shame that your president had to go through this.”
Trump Turns the Tables on Mueller?
Now, following the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s key findings — including no evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign – it seems that the president is seeking once again to turn the tables on Mueller, by renewing calls to investigate the investigators.
“Hopefully somebody is going to look at the other side,” Trump said. “This was an illegal takedown that failed, and hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side.”
In case it wasn’t clear what he meant by that statement, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News an investigation should be launched into how the investigation began.
“He was being investigated for a crime that never happened,” Giuliani said. “There was never any collusion.”
Giuliani added, “There has to be a full and complete investigation, with at least as much enthusiasm as this one, to figure out where did this charge emanate, who started it, who paid for it.”
The former New York mayor specifically called out one of Trump’s most vocal critics, Rep. Adam Schiff, asking the California lawmaker where the evidence of collusion is that Schiff has said he has.
“Where is Schiff’s evidence?” Giuliani asked. “Where is it? In his head?”
Trump has maintained all along that he never colluded with Russia during the 2016 campaign. He has long decried the Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” while attacking the FBI figures who launched the original Russia probe that was eventually taken over by Mueller in 2017. Trump and his legal team have also questioned what role the unverified and salacious anti-Trump “dossier” played in the probe’s beginnings.
Once a staunch supporter, it’s been no secret that more recently the “love affair” between Donald Trump and Ann Coulter is over. Coulter has been very critical of the president lately, and recently the president blasted the conservative columnist over her admonishment of Trump for his “lack of progress on border wall construction.”
In inimitable Trump style, the president hit back with the following tweet. “Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border,”
“Stopping an Invasion”
Trump went on to say, “Major sections of Wall are being built and renovated, with MUCH MORE to follow shortly,” Trump continued. “Tens of thousands of illegals are being apprehended (captured) at the Border and NOT allowed into our Country. With another President, millions would be pouring in. I am stopping an invasion as the Wall gets built.”
Coulter was once an ardent supporter of Trump, primarily because of his views on the Wall and immigration. She even wrote the book, “In Trump We Trust,” which followed her previous bestseller, “Adios, America,” in which she predicted that unlimited illegal immigration would destroy the US. However, like many of us Coulter has been frustrated with Trump not getting the entirety of the Wall built as quickly as he promised.
She has targeted that frustration squarely at the president, instead of where her ire should be directed – at the endless resistance from federal courts, the Democrats, and, of course, RINOs.
Crisis at the Border Continues
Despite Trump schooling Coulter on just how much progress he is actually making on border security, the president’s Twitter war with her comes only a few days after Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen testified before Congress that border authorities at DHS expect 1 million illegal aliens to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border this year, a dramatic spike over previous years, which in this writer’s eyes certainly constitutes a “national emergency.”
Someone needs to remind Coulter that Democrats and Republicans are still fighting the president over his border security efforts – this time members of both parties are trying to block his emergency declaration along the border, but Trump believes he’ll eventually prevail in federal court.
The week that ended on Friday March 8 was a very rough one for President Donald J. Trump, so rough in fact, that even some of his most staunch supporters feel he may not be able to survive another one like it.
Those were the words of Fox News analyst and former judge Andrew Napolitano, who recapped Trump’s horrendous week for the Washington Times.
In the piece, Napolitano described how Trump failed to reach a nuclear disarmament deal with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and saw his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, accuse him of crimes during congressional testimony.
More On Trumps Bad Week
On top of that, Napolitano wrote in his column, the House of Representatives moved to block Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border, and The New York Times reported that Trump had overruled intelligence agencies to demand his son-in-law obtain a security clearance, despite concerns.
And that is all to say nothing about Democrats launching a widespread investigation into Trump, his family and his business dealings, which resulted in document requests from 81 individuals, entities and agencies close to the president ― including his two sons.
For his part, Trump claimed that Cohen’s explosive allegations actually interfered with his negotiations in Hanoi and were the proximate cause of their failure. Napolitano implied that the president might be right, concluding in his piece that of President Trump is to survive all of the forces that are now arrayed against him, determined to see him fail, he must “do more” than his usual tactics, and mount a sober and mature defense.
“The president has serious and powerful tormentors whom he cannot overcome by mockery alone,” Napolitano concluded, suggesting he would need to respond with more than his usual choice of “acerbic tweets,” because many of his current tormentors can legally cause him real harm.
“He needs to address these issues soberly, directly and maturely,” Napolitano wrote. “Can President Trump survive all this? Yes—but not if he has another week like the last one.”
Stefan Lofven, Sweden’s Prime Minister and the leftist Socialist Party leader has ruled out the possibility of stripping Swedish Islamic State Fighters of their citizenships and has said that they have the right to come back to the country.
Nyheter Idag recently reported that Löfven stated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had previously warned those who were traveling in and around the region in which IS had been fighting, that those individuals who were captured shouldn’t anticipate any assistance from the Swedish government at a consular level.
The prime minister did, however, state that he would refrain from stripping the Islamic State fighters of their Swedish citizenship, asserting that it was their right to return to the country if they desired. He then said that upon their return, it would be up to the intelligence service and law enforcement to keep track of the returning terrorist whereabouts and to potentially arrest and prosecute them.
Löfven’s statement lies in stark contrast with what right-wing populist leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, had to say regarding the issue. Åkesson stated, “If they choose to travel away to support the terrorist organization Islamic State, in my opinion, they have used up all of their rights to call themselves Swedish. Then they should also not be a citizen.”
In a reaction to the shocking comments given by Löfven, Paula Bierler, the Sweden Democrat’s migration policy spokeswomen, agreed with Åkesson, writing, “The people who left Sweden to join the Islamic State should be considered to have terminated their Swedish citizenship.”
Since 2012, at least 150 of the approximately 300 terrorists that left the country to fight for the Islamic State have now returned back to Sweden. According to Jan Jönsson, a local politician, at least 19 of these Islamic State terrorists are currently living in the Swedish Capital of Stockholm.
In Malmö, a southern city that’s become infamous for its no-go zones and significant Middle Eastern and North African migrant population, around twenty or so former Islamic State terrorists have purportedly been operating underground and illegal mosques and using them to recruit new radical Islamic terrorists for their jihad against the West.
Michael Helders, an anti-violence extremism activist, stated that former IS fighters are often ‘seen as heroes for young people who are at risk and radicalized.’ He added that “It increases concern, of course, and creates instability. People are worried about their children.”
Of the 300 Islamic terrorists that left Sweden to join Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, about half have returned to Sweden, whereas 50 are thought to have been killed, while another 100 remain in the Middle East.
As the dismantling of the Islamic State continues, we can expect this issue to remain at the forefront of political debate in many western European countries.