Tag Archives: United States

5-Year-Old Victim’s Father Saw Video of Twin Falls Refugee Rape

TWIN FALLS, IDAHO – In a shocking and exclusive interview with Breitbart News, the father of a five-year-old girl that was allegedly raped by refugee children reveals that he watched 30 seconds of a video of the assault taken by one of the three boys charged with the crime. The father also revealed that the parents of the refugee children had urged him not to call the police when he first learned of the attack.

Additionally, new allegations against a ten-year-old boy who was involved in the June 2 attack were revealed in court on Thursday afternoon, alleging the boy both anally and orally penetrated the five-year-old, in addition to urinating on her, as revealed by the father in the clip below. Previously, it had only been known that a seven-year-old boy had orally penetrated the girl and urinated on her.

The little girl’s parents, concerned about biased media coverage as well as their own personal safety and that of their daughter, have not been interviewed on videotape until this Thursday’s interview with Breitbart News.

The father told Breitbart News how he’d gotten a call at work saying his daughter had been raped and left to see what had happened:

Victim’s Father: “I finally got covered and I ran across the street, from my work to my home, and there was just a whole bunch of people outside my apartment, from all families, and I just walked into the apartment and, uh… our… they had, a phone sitting there, and they said yeah, they recorded this, you know. You need to look at this real quick, and I pushed play on that. I watched like thirty seconds.”

Stranahan: “You watched thirty seconds of what?”

Victim’s Father: “I watched thirty seconds of a recording that was recorded by the refugee boys of what they…”

Stranahan: “So you’ve seen that video?”

Victim’s Father: “Yes.”

Stranahan: “Wow, that’s… I… I hadn’t heard that.”

Victim’s Mother: “I haven’t seen it. I just can’t.”

Victim’s Father: “With her anxiety and with her condition I did not allow her to see that. I did not watch the whole thing, like I said, I watched about thirty seconds of it. There was a lot more on there that I did not see. But what I did see is… is horrific for a father to watch for their… for that thing. And so after I watched all that, I came outside, trying to keep my composure because that whole family was still outside my apartment, you know, they were trying to stop us from calling the police, pleading with us.”

Stranahan: “The refugee family was trying to stop you from calling the police?”

Victim’s Father: “Yes. They were pleading with us, saying everything was okay, they did nothing wrong, you know – ‘No police! No police!’ – because they did not speak… they speak Arabic, so they had very few words that they can actually…”

Stranahan: “And had they seen the video?”

Victim’s Mother: “No.”

Victim’s Father: “Um, when I watched what I watched, the older brother of the boy that filmed it, or, one of the brothers to the boys, he came in behind me and watched what I watched as well.”

Stranahan: “Now how old is he? He’s an adult, or?”

Victim’s Father: “He looked like he was in his late teens.”

Stranahan: “Okay.”

Victim’s Mother: “But the mother had not seen it, no.”

Victim’s Father: “Yeah, nobody else had seen it. From [the victim’s mother’s] point of view, when they brought the video, the boy that did do the recording, he came to her with this saying, you know, he did nothing wrong – ‘Oh, hey, I filmed it, here you go, I did nothing wrong’ – you know, he stood outside my apartment the whole time – ‘I didn’t do nothing wrong, I just filmed it, nothing wrong at all’.”

Stranahan: “So you watched thirty seconds of the video and it was clear to you from the thirty seconds that you saw what was – thirty seconds was enough for you to see what was going on?”

Victim’s Father: “Thirty seconds showed them in the laundry room, they pulled my daughter around, pushed her up against the wall, pulled her pants off, he dropped his pants, he was trying to get her from behind, you know, they only… no, for the boy that was trying to do it he was, you know, he was only seven to nine years old, so not a lot of… he didn’t know what he was really doing, as you’d expect. My daughter didn’t really, was trying to fight him a little bit, she finally got away, pulled her pants up, ran around to the side of a corner, ran inside a washing machine, hunched down, shaking in fear, while he danced around with his pants down, laughing at her, pointing at her, with all the other boys – you could hear them in the background, doing the same thing – and that’s all I watched. Because after that I was just… man, I don’t want to see any more of this. If I do, I’m gonna do something I shouldn’t do.”

Stranahan: “Could you tell how long the clip was? You only watched thirty seconds, but did you see how long it was?”

Victim’s Father: “I didn’t check. I know it was a couple minutes.”

Stranahan: “A couple minutes.”

Victim’s Father: “I know there was a lot more that happened that was told to me by the prosecutor who had watched the video. More after that, you know, he went back to her, tried doing the front, he, um… oral sex with, you know, oral with her, he shoved it in her mouth…”

Victim’s Mother: “Which is considered a rape.”

Victim’s Father: “He peed all over her in her mouth, all over her body, her face, head… you know, totally defiled her, I mean…”

Stranahan: “Yeah.”

Victim’s Father: “So I know it had to be more than a minute or two for that to happen. And after he was all done, like I was saying, um, before the lady walked in and stopped him, the next-older boy had gotten– removed his clothes, and was getting ready to…”

Stranahan: “Join?”

Victim’s Father: “Join. And that’s when she walked in and stopped it.

The case, which has largely been ignored or dismissed by the mainstream media, has created a political firestorm as pro- and anti-immigration proponents have clashed about the assault in an election year where the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump has brought immigration and refugee issues to the forefront of national political discussion. Although the establishment press has given little time to the story that does not fit the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s narrative on refugees and immigration, the story has caused a stir on right-leaning media through the work of activists like Pamela Geller.

Trump is right, Let’s pause Islamic immigration and discuss it

Islam 0

When a gunman killed children in Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012, the media dragged us along on a two-week “national conversation” in an attempt to ban guns.  Now, after years of Muslims killing Americans at Fort Hood, an Orlando night club, a Boston marathon, San Bernardino, etc., we are still waiting for the national conversation on “what’s wrong with Islam” to begin.  In fact, they have used reaction to the Trump-Khan exchanges to create a phony taboo against approaching the topic.  A ban on importing semi-automatic rifles would win a vote among Democrats in a heartbeat, and they would ignore the fact that most of them would never be used to harm anyone, and a few would even be used to protect and defend innocent lives in a crisis.  But they brand anyone a bigot who suggests stopping the flow of vast populations of people, some of whom would use those weapons to kill us all.

There can be no doubt that if Presbyterians and Methodists were sawing heads off non-believers a dozen at a time, we’d be treated to endless talking head discussions about “What’s wrong with Christianity?”  So let’s get the national discussion started on the problems with Islam.

Here’s one idea, just to get things rolling.  For every adult American Muslim like Captain Khan (and I hope everyone can agree he is a genuine American hero) who wears the uniform in the US Armed Forces, there are 15 Muslim Americans who have a favorable view of Al Qaeda.[*]  For every Captain Khan in our military, there are hundreds of monsters in the Middle East like the ones who built and set off the bomb that killed him and thousands more who approve.  So the risk-reward odds are heavily stacked against favorable outcomes resulting from Muslim immigration to the US.  The chances we’ll find another hero like Captain Khan in the crowd are low.  Meanwhile, judging from Europe’s experience, the probability of turning loose an army of murderers and rapists on our streets is high.  It’s like blindly digging for treasure in a mine field.  Further, even if we find Muslim immigrants devoted to peace, our own American experience shows the odds are surprisingly high that their children will be radicalized just a few years from now.

We would have been better served if the DNC had invited some surviving victims of jihad to the podium to share their views on importing terrorists.  Some of those folks who lost their legs or eyesight at the Boston Marathon, or the victims of Muslim misogyny and rape, might also have an interesting opinion or two to share.  And all of those victims of Muslim terror would have been able to deliver their opinions with a level of moral gravitas equal to Captain Khan’s father.

Why hasn’t the DNC taken this problem as seriously as gun control?  I suspect that it’s because Muslims vote overwhelmingly Democrat.   This appears to be yet another case of the Democrat contrarian strategy:  the government elects a new people.   And if the new Democrats exterminate the old non-Democrats, that works even better for them.


[*] Of the approximately 1.8 million adult American Muslims, about 6000, or .33% are members of the Armed Forces.  5% have a favorable view of Al Qaeda, so the ratio is 15 to 1.

Why the Establishment, Especially Liberal Democrats Can’t Grasp the Nature of Islam

45919911

The media and effete powers-that-be have been twisting themselves into Halal pretzels Islamsplainin’, rationalizing how a given Muslim terrorist attack isn’t really “Islamic” or isn’t significant. These contortions can become quite ridiculous, such as suggesting that recent Allahu Akbar-shouting Munich shooter Ali Sonboly might somehow have had “right-wing” motives because, among his violent passions, was an interest in Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

A more common (un)intellectual contortion is the minimizing tactic of claiming, as is politically correct authorities’ wont, that a given jihadist attacker “has no ties to IS” (the Islamic State), as if there’s nothing to see here if a man doesn’t provide notarized evidence of allegiance to the boogeyman du jour. Yet this is much as if we’d claimed during the Cold War that a Marxist terrorist attack wasn’t really a Marxist™ terrorist attack because we couldn’t find a connection to the Soviet Union. The issue and problem wasn’t primarily the Soviet Union but communism (Marxism birthed the USSR, not the other way around), an evil ideology that wreaks havoc wherever it takes hold. Likewise, the IS didn’t birth Islam; Islam birthed the IS.

Nonetheless, moderns will often use the misdirection of focusing inordinately on national or group associations when discussing terrorism. This is a dodge, one designed to help us avoid uncomfortable truths, and which relegates us to playing an eternal game of whack-a-mole. The USSR is gone but communism is still a problem (witness North Korea and Cuba), and insofar as it’s less of a threat, it’s largely because its ideas have been discredited. Bad ideas’ standard bearers will change. But as long as the bad ideas remain tolerated and credible, they’ll always win converts.

In fact, the reality that today’s terrorists are diverse makes the point. They may be Iranian, Afghani, American, Albanian, German or from any nation whatsoever; they may be part of Hamas, IS, al Qaeda, the U.S. Army (Maj. Hassan), some other organization or no organization; they may be of any race or ethnicity, be rich or poor, and male or (occasionally) female. They only have one truly common thread: being Muslim.

The point is that, ultimately, this is a battle not of nations or organizations but ofideas, and ideas are powerful. Beliefs matter. Every action begins with a thought — or, at least, with a reflex response reflecting a worldview that has shaped one’s thoughts and emotions.

Yet there’s more to understanding Muslim violence. A comprehensive German study of 45,000 immigrant youths, reported in 2010, found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent. Not more violent “if they join Islamic State” — but more violent, period. And while the study authors had their own, mostly politically correct explanations, I think I know a major reason why.

Becoming serious about a faith and digging into it generally means getting closer to its actual teachings. A lukewarm cradle Catholic may have little knowledge of even the Bible, but a devout one will likely have read that and the Church’s catechism. Likewise, an indifferent nominal Muslim (you know, the kind they call “moderate”) may not know much of the Koran, nine percent of which is devoted to political violence. Yet a pious Muslim may scour that book — and more. He may also imbibe the remaining 84 percent of the Islamic canon, the two books known as the Hadith and Sira.

And, respectively, 21 percent and 67 percent of their texts are devoted to political violence.

That’s what you call a full dose. Also note that while access to these two more obscure Islamic canonical texts was once limited, the Internet age places them at everyone’s fingertips. Couple this with the violent preaching of immigrant Imams, and that Muslims consider violent warlord Mohammed “The Perfect Man” and thus the ultimate role model, and the German study’s findings are no mystery. Speaking of mysteries, though, the true effect of Islam will remain one unless we delve further — and break ourselves of certain misconceptions common to our times.

In the grip of religious-equivalence doctrine, many moderns have a habit of painting all faiths with the same brush; militant secularists hiss that they’re all bad while many conservatives will behave as if all “real” religions are good; consequently, conservatives sometimes reconcile dislike for Islam by insisting it is “not a religion.” But like ideology, “religion” is a category, not a creed; it contains the good, the bad and the ugly. So while religion isn’t bad, there is bad religion.

Now, most belief sets that have been embraced by man — whether we label them “ideology” or a “faith”; be they Nazism, communism, the Aztec religion involving mass human sacrifice or something else — have been what we today would call lacking to awful. This understanding lends perspective:

Islam is not an anomaly, historically speaking.

Rather, it aligns more closely with man’s default for belief sets: violence-enabling/tolerating wickedness. It is Christianity that is anomalous — as a realreligion of peace.

Why does grasping this matter? The common assumption that a belief set labeled “religious” must involve generally peaceful injunctions is a result of projecting our own historically anomalous Christian standards onto other, often historically normal belief sets. This understanding can break us of the emotional reluctance to accept that what we call a “major religion” could be destructive. Instead of wrongly believing we must place Islam in a lonely, sparsely occupied “abnormal” category, we realize we merely have to accept that it’s closer to that oh-so tragic, bloody human norm. Now, there’s yet one more thing to consider about the impact of Islam.

When analyzing the effect of a religion, people understandably focus on its injunctions. What does it dictate? Yet such an analysis is insufficient because man’s default is not to be saintly but uncivilized; people will naturally display many if not all the Seven Deadly Sins and be generally barbaric unless some civilizing agency tempers their fallen nature. Thus, as with a person, the true measure of a religion is not just what it does but what it fails to do — its faults of omission, not just of commission.

It is clear to me that while Islam may be better than the Aztec and some other pagan religions, it nonetheless does a relatively poor job taming the beast. In fact, it apparently gives great license to our sinful nature. Considering greed, lust and sloth, why is it that many Muslims believe it’s licit to rob, rape and leech offkuffars (non-Muslims)? Does Islam do much to temper the envy and pridefulness inspiring so much anti-Western hatred? What of the officially approved bearing of false witness called taqiyya? Then there’s that father of violence, wrath. Danish psychologist Dr. Nicolai Sennels, who worked for years with incarcerated Muslim youth, points out that anger is highly accepted in Muslim cultures; moreover, the ability to intimidate, he writes, “is seen as strength and source of social status.” He concludes, “Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behaviour.”

Also note that the West’s foundational faith, Christianity, and its root, Judaism — the two faiths Westerners are best acquainted with and whose norms they may reflexively (and unwisely) project onto Islam — have as the basis of their moral law the Ten Commandments. Islam’s moral law is Sharia. And ne’er the twain shall meet.

In other words, even if given Muslims aren’t mindful of their canon’s violent injunctions, even if jihad is the furthest thing from their minds, they will as a group still be more prone to violence. That is, as long as their hearts and minds embody what Islam does, and what it fails to do.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com