Sunday, September 17, 2017

How Women are Treated by Islam

Thursday, September 14, 2017

  • The majority of the judges nevertheless determined that "triple talaq" was actually "against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran," and "what is bad in theology is bad in law as well." According to the decision, the practice was in violation of Article 14 of India's constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
  • In Britain, abusive practices against Muslim women are still undertaken by Sharia Councils with impunity. In the West, the supposed dangers of multiculturalism are still regarded as more important than human rights. All Britain would need to do is enforce its own laws.
  • What supporters of this form of multiculturalism fail to realize -- or refuse to acknowledge -- is that the very existence of Sharia-compliant tribunals is not only a threat to modern justice, but necessarily abets the abuse of Muslim women, lack of equality, and the total lack of equal justice under law. In truth, justice is denied.
     In a recent landmark ruling, India's Supreme Court followed the lead of 22 Muslim countries -- including Pakistan and Bangladesh -- by outlawing the Islamic practice according to which a husband is able to divorce his wife instantly by uttering the word talaq (Arabic for "divorce") three times -- including by text or voice mail. The decision was not unanimous. A minority of the judges argued that banning "triple talaq" would be a violation of the Indian constitution, which protects religious freedom.
     The majority of the judges nevertheless determined that "triple talaq" was actually "against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran," and "what is bad in theology is bad in law as well." According to the decision, the practice was in violation of Article 14 of India's constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
     The verdict was the result of a petition filed by five Muslim women whose "triple talaq" divorces left them destitute, all because of undue powers bestowed upon their husbands by radical clerics. The verdict was an enormous relief to them, and other women like them across India. Its broader message, however, needs to serve as a road map. And a warning. In the West, the supposed dangers of multiculturalism are still regarded as more important than human rights.
     In Britain, abusive practices against Muslim women are still undertaken by Sharia Councils with impunity. These practices include "triple talaq," halala (a ritual enabling a divorced Muslim woman to remarry her husband only by first wedding someone else, consummating the union, and then being divorced by him) and iddah, a mandatory waiting period of three menstrual cycles before a divorced woman is allowed to remarry.
     These Sharia Councils in the U.K. have been running unofficial parallel justice systems "everywhere in the country," performing weddings and decreeing divorces according to the strictest interpretation of Islam.
     In spite a liberal marriage contract issued in 2008 by the Muslim Institute, guaranteeing equal rights to British Muslim women (including the banning of forced marriages) -- which was endorsed by the Muslim Council of Britain, the Islamic Sharia Council and other prominent Islamic groups -- virtually nothing has changed. Britain's Forced Marriage Unit reported 1,428 cases of forced marriages in 2016 alone. All Britain would need to do is enforce its own laws.
     The U.K. is not the only Western country afflicted by and succumbing to such practices. In Australia, for instance, a self-appointed arbitration group called Sharia Mediation has been handling family disputes on issues covered by Australian law. In other words, as in Britain, Australia has a parallel Islamic legal system operating under its nose.
     In the United States, as well, a body was established in 2015 in Dallas, Texas to arbitrate disputes among the area's growing Muslim population. Although this Islamic "tribunal" is said to issue nonbinding decisions -- and is being likened to Jewish rabbinical courts and Catholic tribunals -- its opponents fear it will mimic Sharia courts in the Middle Eastern countries.
     In Canada, the practice has been going on for more than a decade. In 2004, the province of Ontario authorized the use of Sharia arbitration in matters of "property, marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance." The law enabling this -- the Arbitration Act -- was passed in 1991, to ease the "overloaded court system."
     What supporters of this form of multiculturalism fail to realize -- or refuse to acknowledge -- is that the very existence of Sharia-compliant tribunals is not only a threat to modern justice, but necessarily abets the abuse of Muslim women, lack of equality, and the total lack of equal justice under law.
     It is crucial for Western democracies to outlaw archaic practices that rob women and others of their rights, and to cease enabling these laws in the name of "religious freedom." In truth, justice is denied. India just took a stand in the right direction. Britain, Australia, the U.S. and Canada can and should follow.
Haitham al-Haddad is a British Sharia Council judge, and sits on the board of advisors for the Islamic Sharia Council. Regarding the handling of domestic violence cases, he stated in an interview, "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife, because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort their matters among themselves." 

.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Proof Beyond Doubt: No Bi-Party Solutions in Progressive Chicago Politics

Rahm Emanuel creates ‘Trump-free zone’ for students at Chicago schools

Chicago's Liberal Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday assured incoming high school students that they should not to worry about President Donald Trump ending the “Dreamers” program, saying Chicago Public Schools are a “Trump-free” sanctuary for all young illegal immigrants.

“To all the Dreamers that are here in this room and in the city of Chicago: You are welcome in the city of Chicago. This is your home. And you have nothing to worry about,” Mr. Emanuel told a group of freshman on the first day of classes at Solorio Academy High School, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

“Chicago, our schools, our neighborhoods, our city, as it relates to what President Trump said, will be a Trump-free zone. You have nothing to worry about,” Mr. Emanuel said. “And I want you to know this, and I want your families to know this. And rest assured, I want you to come to school … and pursue your dreams.”

Chicago Public Schools CEO Forrest Claypool said the school system is a “sanctuary” for undocumented students.
“We do not allow federal agents on these grounds and in this building,” he said, the Sun-Times reported. “You are safe and secure here to learn, to grow and to pursue your dreams and we hope that you do so.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday that the Trump administration is ending former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which allowed illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to be shielded from deportation.

This of course coming after a bloody Labor Day weekend in Chicago, a city being torn apart by violence, drugs and a lack of sound leadership

 - The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Londonistan: 500 closed churches, 423 new mosques

 April 3, 2017 at 6:50 am 42News
SHARE!
“London is more Islamic than many Muslim countries put together,” says London Islamic preacher Maulana Syed Raza Rizvi.
The city of London – dubbed “Londonistan” by outspoken journalist Melanie Phillips – now has 423 new mosques, which are “built on the sad ruins of English Christianity.” So writes Italian journalist and writer, Arutz Sheva columniist Giulio Meotti in an article written for Gatestone Institute reported here.
The Hyatt United Church, for instance, on Hamilton Road, was purchased by the Egyptian community and is being converted into a mosque. St Peter’s Church is now the Madina Mosque, and the Brick Lane Mosque used to be a Methodist church. Not only buildings are converted, writes Meotti, but also people: “The number of converts to Islam [in London] has doubled; often they embrace radical Islam, as with Khalid Masood, the terrorist who struck Westminster.”
“Given the current trends,” he predicts, “Christianity in England is becoming a relic, while Islam will be the religion of the future.”
It is estimated that by 2020, the number of Muslims attending prayers will top the number of Christians attending weekly Mass, 683,000 to 679,000. Within a generation, the number of churchgoers will be three times lower than that of Muslims who go regularly to mosque on Friday.
Meotti cites a Wall Street Journal report stating that 500 London churches of all denominations had been turned into private homes.
Demographically, Britain has been acquiring an increasingly Islamic face in many cities. A study carried out in 2015 showed that the most common name in England was none other than Mohammed and variations thereof.
Birmingham, England’s 2nd largest city, has a population that is 21.8% Muslim; Manchester, #6, stands at 15.8% Muslim, and Bradford, with well over 300,000 people, is a quarter Muslim, including half its children. In Leicester, too, Britain’s 10th largest city, half the children are Muslim.
Meotti cites a report in The Spectator according to which only two of the 1,700 mosques in Britain follow the modernist interpretation of Islam, compared with 56% in the United States.
But possibly most telling is the presence in London of no fewer than 100 sharia (Islamic law) courts, according to official statistics; there are likely many more. “The advent of this parallel judicial system has been made possible thanks to the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution,” according to Giotti. “These new courts are based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.”
One of Britain’s leading judges, Sir James Munby, said that courts must be more “multicultural” – an allusion to “Islamic.” Leading personalities such as former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Chief Justice Lord Phillips have suggested that British law should “incorporate” elements of sharia law.
Analysts continue to observe and report on the trend, and invariably conclude by asking: “Is anyone doing anything to stop it?”
(c) 2017 Arutz Sheva, All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).

Sunday, March 05, 2017

FRANCE'S DEATH SPIRAL by Guy Milliere
  • In 1990, the “Gayssot law” was passed, stipulating that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited”. Since then, it has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.
  • The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity. All history textbooks are “Islamically correct.”
  • In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated only by Muslim doctors, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.
February 2, 2017: A “no-go zone” in the eastern suburbs of Paris. Police on patrol hear screams. They decide to check. While there, a young man insults them. They decide to arrest him. He hits them. A fight starts. He accuses a policeman of having raped him with a police baton. A police investigation quickly establishes that the young man was not raped. But it is too late; a toxic process has begun.
Without waiting for any further evidence, the French Interior Minister says that the police officers have “behaved badly.” He adds that “police misconduct must be condemned”. French President François Hollande goes to the hospital to give his support to the young man. The president says he has conducted himself in a “dignified and responsible manner.” The next day, a demonstration against the police is cobbled together. The demonstration turns into a riot.
Riots continue for more than two weeks. They affect more than twenty cities throughout France. They spread to the heart of Paris. Dozens of cars are torched. Shops and restaurants are looted. Official buildings and police stations are attacked.
The police are ordered not to intervene. They do what they are told to do. Few arrests take place.
Calm is slowly returning, but the riots can easily start again. France is a country at the mercy of large-scale uprisings. They can explode anytime, anyplace. French leaders know it, and find refuge in cowardice.
What is happening is the result of a corrosive development initiated five decades ago. In the 1960s, after the war in Algeria, President Charles de Gaulle directed the country toward closer relations with Arab and Muslim states.
Migratory flows of “guest workers” from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, which had started a few years earlier, sharply increased. Immigrants were not encouraged to integrate. Everyone assumed they would return home at the end of their employment contracts. They were settled in the outskirts of big cities. The economy was dynamic, with strong job creation. It seemed there would be no problems.
Twenty years later, serious difficulties became obvious. The immigrants now numbered millions. People from sub-Saharan Africa joined those coming from Arab nations. Neighborhoods made up of just Arabs and Africans were formed. The economy had slowed down and mass unemployment settled in. But the jobless immigrants did not go back home, instead relying on social benefits. Integration still did not exist. Although many of these new arrivals had become French citizens, they often sounded resentful of France and the West. Political agitators started teaching them to detest Western civilization. Violent gangs of young Arabs and Africans began to form. Clashes with police were common. Often, when a gang member was wounded, political agitators would help to incite more violence.
The situation grew difficult to control. But nothing was done to fix it; quite the opposite.
In 1984, a movement called SOS Racisme was created by Trotskyist militants, and began to define any criticism of immigration as “racist”. Major leftist parties supported SOS Racism. They seem to have thought that by accusing their political opponents of racism, they could attract the votes of “new citizens.” The presence of Islamist agitators, alongside agitators in Arab and African neighborhoods, plus the emergence of anti-Western Islamic discourse, alarmed many observers. SOS Racisme immediately designated those who spoke of Islamic danger as “Islamophobic racists.”
In 1990, a law drafted by a Communist lawmaker, Jean-Claude Gayssot, was passed. It stipulated that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited.” Since then, this law has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined, and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.
The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity.
In 2002, the situation in the country became dramatic.
Arab and African neighborhoods had become “no-go zones.” Radical Islam was widespread and Islamist attacks began. Dozens of cars would be torched each week. Muslim anti-Semitism was rising rapidly and led to an increase in anti-Jewish attacks. SOS Racisme and other anti-racist organizations were silent on Muslim anti-Semitism. Unwilling to be accused of “Islamophobic racism,” organizations tasked with fighting against anti-Semitism were also silent.
A book, The Lost Territories of the Republic, by Georges Bensoussan (under the pen-name “Emmanuel Brenner”), was released. It depicted accurately what was going on. It spoke of the sweeping hatred for the West among young people of immigrant origin, and of the full-blown hatred of Jews among young Muslims. It said that “no-go zones” were on the edge of secession and no longer a part of French territory. The mainstream media ignored the book.
Three years later, in October 2005, riots broke out across the country. More than 9,000 cars were torched. Hundreds of stores, supermarkets and shopping centers were looted and destroyed. Dozens of police officers were seriously injured. The storm stopped when the government reached an agreement to make peace with Muslim associations. Power had changed hands.
Since then, the state scarcely maintains law and order in France.
Another book, A Submissive France, was recently published by the man who had written The Lost Territories of the Republic fifteen years before, the historian Georges Bensoussan. Now, the French Republic itself is a lost territory.
No go zones” are no longer French territory. Radical Islam and the hatred of the West reign among Muslim populations and, more broadly, among populations of immigrant origin. Muslim anti-Semitism makes life unbearable for Jews who have not yet left France and who cannot afford to relocate to areas where Jews are not yet threatened: the 16th and 17th arrondissements, the Beverly Hills of Paris; or the city of Neuilly, a wealthy suburb of Paris.
Everywhere in France, high school teachers go to work with a Qur’an in their hands, to make sure that what they say in class does not contradict the sacred book of Islam.
All history textbooks are “Islamically correct”. One-third of the French Muslims say they want to live according to Islamic sharia law and not according to the laws of France.
In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated by Muslim doctors only, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.
Attacks on police officers occur on a daily basis. The police have orders: they must not enter “no-go zones.” They must not respond to insults and threats. They must flee if they are assaulted. Sometime, they do not have time to flee.
In October 2016, two policemen were burned alive in their car in Viry-Châtillon, south of Paris. In January 2017, three police officers fell into an ambush and were stabbed in in Bobigny, east of Paris.
Police officers did respond to the incident on February 2. When a man became violent, they did not flee. The French government could only find them guilty, accusing a police officer of raping his attacker. But the police officer was not guilty of rape; he was guilty of simply having intervened. The French government also found his colleagues guilty. They were all accused of “violence.” They now will have to go to court.
The young man who destroyed the lives of these police officers is not being accused of anything. In all the “no go zones,” he is now a hero. Mainstream television channels ask him for interviews. His name is Theodore, or Theo. “Justice for Theo” stickers are everywhere. Banners sporting his name are waved at demonstrations. Rioters shout his name along with the name of Allah.
A few journalists have said that he is not a hero; that “no go zones” are reservoirs of anti-Western, anti-Semitic and anti-French hatred ready to burst. But these journalists are also cautious. They know they might be prosecuted.
Georges Bensoussan, the Moroccan-born author of The Lost Territories of the Republic and of A Submissive France — is currently on trial. A complaint was filed against him by the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF). They are suing him for having said: “Today we are witnessing a different people in the French nation; they are causing the return of a number of democratic values to which we adhere,” and “This visceral anti-Semitism, proven by the Fondapol Survey last year, cannot remain in silence.”
Judges were immediately assigned to the case. The verdict is due March 5. If Bensoussan is not sentenced, the CCIF will be sure to appeal. Bensoussan is a man from the left. He is a member of “J Call” (European Jewish Call for Reason), a movement criticizing “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank”, and asking for “the creation of a viable Palestinian state”. Even such positions are no longer enough to protect him. The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), an organization founded in 1927 to combat anti-Semitism, supported CCIF. Organizations ostensibly fighting anti-Semitism in France instead seem to be clinging to futile fantasies of appeasing their tormentors. They never mention Muslim anti-Semitism, and have now fully joined the fight against “Islamophobic racism” against Jewish authors such as Georges Bensoussan.
Elections will be held in France, in April. The Socialist Party chose a candidate, Benoît Hamon, supported by the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The far-left and the communists will also have a candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, an unconditional admirer of Lenin, Hugo Chavez and Yasser Arafat, and a resolute enemy of Israel.
Hamon and Mélenchon will likely each receive about 15% of the vote.
A third candidate from the left, Emmanuel Macron, is a former member of the French Socialist government under François Hollande. To attract the Muslim vote, Macron went to Algeria and said that French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” He stated several times that French culture does not exist, and that Western culture does not exist either; but he added that Arab Muslim culture must have “its place” in France.
The conservative candidate, François Fillon, promises to fight Sunni Islam, but says he wants a “strong alliance” between France, Iran’s mullahs and Hezbollah. His reputation is badly damaged by a “fake jobs” scandal. He has attacked France’s Jewish community, presumably to secure the Muslim vote. He said it does not respect “all the rules of the Republic.” He has said that Israel represents a threat to world peace.
Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate of the National Front, may seem the most determined to straighten France out, but her economic program is as self-defeatingly Marxist as that of Hamon or Mélenchon. Le Pen also wants to attract the Muslim electorate. She went to Cairo a few months ago to meet the Grand Imam of al-Azhar. Like all other French political parties, her party supported the anti-Israeli positions of former U.S. President Barack Obama, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed last year on December 23.
Le Pen will likely win the first round of the two-round election, but will almost certainly be defeated in the second round: all the other candidates will gather behind the candidate facing her, probably Macron or Fillon (if he still is in the race). Le Pen might think that in five years the situation in France will be even worse, and that then she will have a serious chance to be elected President.
A few months ago, in a recently published book, Civil War is Coming, the French columnist Ivan Rioufol wrote: “The danger is not the National Front, which is only the expression of the anger of an abandoned people. The danger is the ever-closer links between leftism and Islamism…. The danger must be stopped.”
Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

  • "America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!" — Geert Wilders, Dutch MP, head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), and now on trial in the Netherlands for free speech.
  • "2016 is, by the looks of it, going to be the year of two great political revolutions. I thought Brexit was big but boy this looks like it is going to be even bigger." — Nigel Farage, MEP and leader of the UK Independence Party.
  • "The political class is reviled across much of the West, the polling industry is bankrupt and the press just hasn't woken up to what's going on in the world." — Nigel Farage.
  • "In a democracy, when the people feel ignored and despised, they will find a way to be heard. This vote is the consequence of a revolt of the middle class against a ruling elite that wants to impose what they should think." — Laurent Wauquiez, leader of the French opposition party The Republicans.
Donald Trump's electoral victory has come as a shock to Europe's political and media establishment, which fears that the political sea change underway in the United States will energize populist parties in Europe.
Anti-establishment politicians, many of whom are polling well in a number of upcoming European elections, are hoping Trump's rise will inspire European voters to turn out to vote for them in record numbers.
Commenting on Trump's victory, Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, wrote: "America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!"
More than a dozen elections will be held in Europe during the next twelve months, beginning with a re-run of the Austrian presidential election scheduled for December 4. Polls show that Norbert Hofer, of the anti-immigration Austrian Freedom Party, is on track to win that race.
Also on December 4, Italians will vote in a referendum on reforming the constitution. Observers say Trump's victory will make it more difficult for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, one the few world leaders publicly to endorse Hillary Clinton, to prevail. They say Renzi's open support for Clinton will hurt Italy's relations with the United States. Renzi has said he will resign if he loses the referendum, which calls for curbing the role of the Senate. Most opinion polls show the "no" camp ahead. Renzi says the move will simplify decision-making, but opponents say it will reduce checks and balances.
General elections are scheduled in 2017 for the Czech Republic, France, Germany and the Netherlands, EU countries where anti-establishment candidates are challenging the established order.
Mainstream politicians and the media have sought to discredit populist leaders by branding them as neo-Nazi and xenophobic for their opposition to mass migration, multiculturalism and the rise of Islam in Europe. If Donald Trump can demonstrate that he is able to govern the United States and produce tangible results, especially by growing the economy and curbing illegal immigration, Europe's political establishment will have a much harder time stigmatizing dissenters.

Anti-establishment politicians in Europe, such as Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders (left) in the Netherlands and UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage (right), have embraced Donald Trump and hope his rise will inspire European voters to turn out to vote for them in record numbers.

What follows is a selection of official European reactions to Trump's election victory. Anti-establishment politicians have embraced Trump, while establishment politicians have mostly issued pro forma congratulatory statements that are polite but formal and distant.
Austria. The leader of the Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, congratulated Trump on Facebook. He wrote:
"Little by little, the political left and the out-of-touch and corrupt establishment is being punished by voters and driven from power. This is a good thing, because the law comes from the people. The Austrian mainstream media, which has been campaigning against Trump for weeks and prematurely declared Hillary Clinton the victor, were embarrassed by the voting public."
Belgium. The populist Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party congratulated Trump and said his unexpected election victory could be repeated in Europe. Party chairman Tom Van Grieken tweeted: "U.S. election shows again how far politicians are from the people." In another tweet, he wrote: "The rise of Trump is not an isolated phenomenon. In Europe too, more and more voters want real change."
Britain. Prime Minister Theresa May said:
"I would like to congratulate Donald Trump on being elected the next President of the United States, following a hard-fought campaign. Britain and the United States have an enduring and special relationship based on the values of freedom, democracy and enterprise. We are, and will remain, strong and close partners on trade, security and defense."
The leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage, who successfully campaigned for the "Brexit" referendum for Britain to leave the European Union, said Trump's victory did not surprise him. He tweeted:
"2016 is, by the looks of it, going to be the year of two great political revolutions. I thought Brexit was big but boy this looks like it is going to be even bigger."
He also tweeted: "I hand over the mantle to @RealDonaldTrump! Many congratulations. You have fought a brave campaign."
Speaking to ITV, Farage said: "The political class is reviled across much of the West, the polling industry is bankrupt and the press just hasn't woken up to what's going on in the world."
Czech Republic. President Milos Zeman said Trump's election was a victory over "media manipulation." He said:
"I would like to cordially congratulate Donald Trump. I had, as one of few European politicians, declared public support for this candidate because I agree with his opinions on migration as well as the fight against Islamic terrorism. I appreciate Donald Trump's public demeanor. He speaks clearly, sometimes roughly, but understandably, and avoids what is sometimes called political correctness."
European Union. European Council President Donald Tusk wrote:
"Europe and the United States simply have no option but to cooperate as closely as possible. I listened with attention to President-elect Trump's call for American unity. And I, in turn, would like to call for European and transatlantic unity. I do not believe that any country today can be great in isolation. But I do believe that America and Europe can, should and will work together. It is in our common interest. We have to recognise that this will take major efforts from both sides. The EU is a strong and reliable partner and will remain so. We expect the same from America and its new President."
France. President François Hollande tweeted: "The American people have expressed themselves. They elected Donald Trump. I congratulate him. I am also thinking of Hillary Clinton."
The French Ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, tweeted: "This is the end of an epoch. After Brexit and this vote anything is possible. The world is crumbling in front of our eyes." He later deleted the tweet.
Former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said: "What's happening in the US could happen in France."
Former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said: "The boundaries of reason disappeared with Brexit, the main lesson for France is that Le Pen can win."
Laurent Wauquiez, leader of the opposition party The Republicans, said: "In a democracy, when the people feel ignored and despised, they will find a way to be heard. This vote is the consequence of a revolt of the middle class against a ruling elite that wants to impose what they should think."
The leader of the National Front party, Marine Le Pen, tweeted: "Congratulations to the new president of the United States Donald Trump and the free American people!"
Le Pen's father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, tweeted: "Today the United States, tomorrow France."
Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who did not mention Trump by name, lectured the president-elect on values:
"Germany and America are connected by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views. I offer the next president of the United States close cooperation on the basis of these values."
Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel was less gracious. He said:
"Trump is the harbinger of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. He is also a warning for us. Our country and Europe must change if we want to counter the authoritarian international movement."
Foreign Minister Foreign Frank-Walter Steinmeier said:
"We hope that we are not facing greater instability in international politics. During his campaign, Trump was critical not just of Europe, but also of Germany. I believe we must prepare for American foreign policy becoming less predictable. We must prepare for a situation in which America will be tempted to make decisions on its own more often.
"I do not want to sugarcoat it: Nothing will be easier and much will be more difficult. Just as we Germans learned a lot in the past from our American friends, we should now encourage our American friends to stay true to past partnerships and to us."
Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Trump's victory was "a big shock" and "not a vote for him but rather against Washington, against the establishment." She added:
"Of course we Europeans, as a NATO ally, know that if Donald Trump becomes president, he'll ask: What are you contributing to this alliance? But we're also wondering, what's your position on this alliance?"
Justice Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: "The world won't end. But it will get crazier."
The leader of the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, Frauke Petry, predicted that Trump's victory would result in a political change in Europe too. On Facebook, she wrote:
"It was high time that in the United States of America, people who feel disaffected withdrew their vote for the political establishment. While 93% of voters in Washington, DC voted for Clinton in order to retain their own power structures, the majority of voters across the country want a political new beginning, an economic recovery for the stricken middle class and an end of division in what is still the most powerful country in the world.
"This election result is encouraging for Germany and for Europe, because Trump really has the cards for political sea-change in his hand. I congratulate Donald Trump on his election victory and on this historic chance....
"Like Americans, citizens of Germany must have the courage to put a tick in the ballot box and not remain complacent. Their opinion counts, even if political correctness would appear to have elevated the decreed consensus to the level of a new doctrine."
Beatrix von Storch, an AfD Member of the European Parliament, wrote:
"Donald Trump's victory is a clear signal that citizens of the Western world want political change. This is a surprise only to the establishment. In the USA as well as Germany, citizens wish for secure borders, less globalism, and politics that focus with common sense on issues in their own country."
Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wrote on Facebook: "What great news. Democracy is still alive."
Italy. The founder of the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement, Beppe Grillo, hailed Trump's victory. He wrote:
"This is proof that these millions of demagogues are not the people, they are journalists, intellectuals, anchored to a world that no longer exists. There are similarities between these events in America and our movement.... We are going to govern and they will ask: 'But how did they do it?' They channelled the collective anger."
The Netherlands. Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders said:
"America regained its national sovereignty, its identity, it reclaimed its own democracy, that's why I call it a revolution.
"Now there is a leader, despite all the negativity spread about him by the political elite and the press, that has only one concern, and that is the national interest of the voters of America who are concerned about immigration, who are concerned about the job loss as a result of globalization, who are concerned about the Islamization of their society. And he tends to say the truth and convince people that if they start moving, anything is possible, and I believe the historical event of yesterday will have an enormous effect on European politics as well.
"The lesson for Europe is, what America can do we can do as well."
In an essay published by Breitbart, Wilders wrote:
"Yesterday, the American people made it quite clear that they do not want to follow in Western Europe's footsteps. They do not want to give their country away. They want to preserve their nation, their freedoms, their prosperity. They felt the time for liberation had come.
"The American voters no longer want to be represented by politicians who do not take their concerns seriously. They felt Donald Trump was the only one who listens to them....
"America has just liberated itself from political correctness. The American people expressed their desire to remain a free and democratic people. Now it is time for Europe. We can and will do the same!"
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.