The Inconvenient Truth about Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Laws

There are two broad categories of lies that could be referred to as crimes of commission and crimes of omission.

The crime of commission is when facts are blatantly misrepresented, while the crime of omission involves leaving out relevant information, for example, when statements are taken out of context or relevant information is left out of the report.

These tactics have become commonplace and routine particularly when the mainstream media reports on the Trump administration and also when it reports on issues pertaining to immigration.

When the Trump administration promulgates policies that impact immigration, synergy kicks in and the truth is likely nowhere to be found.

Over a century ago a popular expression, the streets are paved with gold, drew immigrants to the United States who were determined to strike it rich in America.  When they got here they found that the streets were paved, not with gold, but with cobblestones that came from the cargo holds of ships that used those cobblestones as ballast.

Back then the cargo holds of the merchant ships that arrived at America’s ports were filled with cobblestones that served as ballast to keep those ships stable on the voyage to the United States.  Once here, those stones were off-loaded and all sorts of products that were made in America replaced the cobblestones in the cargo holds of those ships that returned to their original ports with merchandise to be sold.

The cobblestones were used to pave the roads of the port cities.

Nevertheless the immigrants who came to America worked hard and earned a living and built their futures in our nation.  None of them expected, nor received a “free ride.”

You could say that rather than being paved with gold, the streets were paved with blood, sweat and tears of the immigrants.

With their new-found freedom to worship and to pursue their dreams, many succeeded in building successful and happy lives in the United States.

On August 12, 2019 Business Today breathlessly published a Reuters News report under the title, “New Trump administration rule to target legal immigrants who get public assistance.  The subtitle of that report utterly twisted the truth:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that would limit legal immigration by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor

That article also included this excerpt:

The 837-page rule could be the most drastic of all the Trump administration’s policies targeting the legal immigration system, experts have said. Advocates for immigrants have criticized the plan as an effort to cut legal immigration without going through Congress to change U.S. law.

The new rule is derived from the Immigration Act of 1882, which allows the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone likely to become a “public charge.”

That last paragraph creates the utterly false impression that President Trump had to dig back to law books published 137 years ago to find legal justification for invoking the concept of public charge to prevent aliens on public assistance from receiving lawful immigrant status.

In reality, while the notion of public charge was first codified in 1882, it has persisted in all subsequent rewrites of America’s immigration laws and, in fact, is still an element of the current Immigration and Nationality Act.

The claim that Trump’s public charge policies would deny entry to aliens who are poor is false.  This concern does not deny entry to aliens who are poor.  Historically many immigrants who were destitute have come to the United States.  However, they worked their way up the economic ladder to create the American Dream for themselves, their families and ultimately, for America.

The issue is not whether or not an alien seeking to enter the U.S. is poor but if that alien has the physical capabilities and skills and/or education to work and be self-sufficient in the United States.

In fact, Ellis Island was run by Public Health officials along with immigration officials.  Public Health officials had two concerns- that the arriving immigrants were not suffering from dangerous communicable diseases that could create a deadly epidemic and that the arriving immigrants were mentally and physically capable of working and supporting themselves and, perhaps, their families.

My earlier article, “The Left’s Immigration Con Game, referenced the extraordinary documentary, “Forgotten Ellis Island, that chronicles the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic and runs contrary to the bogus mythology told by the immigration anarchists of today.

On August 16, 2019 CNBC reported, “Advocacy groups file suit to block Trump’s new ‘public charge’ immigration rule” that included this outrageous quote:

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration or whether or not people are wealthy.”

More recently NBC reported, “New York, Connecticut and Vermont sue to block Trump’s public charge rule.

Once again, the Left is resorting to “Lawfare”, filing lawsuits to achieve political objectives.

The quote that appears in the CNBC article noted above from Western Center on Law and Poverty was quick to invoke race.  Let us also be clear that race, religion and/or ethnicity play absolutely no role in determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.

The grounds for determining admissibility of aliens into the United States is codified in a section of the current Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

Among the categories of aliens who are excludible are aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, serious mental illness, are criminals, spies, terrorists, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, aliens who had been previously deported (removed) from the United States and aliens who have committed fraud in their applications for visas and/or immigration benefits.

Additionally, it establishes that aliens are inadmissible (excludible) if they are likely to become public charges.

This is how the current Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously lays out the entire issue of public charge:

(4)  Public charge

(A)   In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B)   Factors to be taken into account

(i)  In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s–

(I)  age;

(II)  health;

(III)  family status;

(IV)  assets, resources, and financial status;  and

(V)  education and skills.

(ii)  In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

The media has accused President Trump of wanting to separate families.  In point of fact, family members may provide an affidavit of support wherein they guarantee that they will provide financial assistance to their family members who seek to immigrate to the United States.  This would help to unite families not divide them.

The issue is not about dividing families or denying poor people an opportunity to immigrate to the United States, but to protect the financial solvency of the United States, an issue of increasing concern as the national debt continues to soar into the stratosphere, by simply enforcing existing laws.

I must remind you that the imposition of American policies to address public charge laws is not new, but has a long-established history that goes back 137 years.

It is clear that the United States is unable to secure its borders.  Billions of humans around the world live below the poverty line.  If the United States was to permit all of the world’s poor to come to America with the expectation of receiving free healthcare, free education, housing subsidies and other such free benefits, our nation would implode.

As it is, our national debt has soared into the stratosphere and continues its upward trajectory.

The time has come for the Radical Left to be reminded of one of their favorite chants, the one that deals with “sustainability!”

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Donald Trump is the Dennis Rodman of Politics

Donald Trump is the Dennis Rodman of politics.  To my Democrat friends, now that you have stopped laughing, please continue reading; to my Republican friends, this is a supreme compliment to President Trump, please continue reading.

I have had the pleasure of talking with Rodman privately in the past and found him to be one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.  And he has one of the most magnetic personalities I have ever encountered.

No one dislikes him and he immediately makes everyone feel at home around him.

Those who understand Rodman best are those who do not try to understand him; they simply accept him at face value and give him the freedom to be himself.

Everyone in the N.B.A. wanted Rodman on their team because they knew he would deliver on the court.

Nevermind him wearing a wedding dress to his book release party in the 90s.  He would show up late for practices and games; but despite this disruption, every N.B.A. team would have gladly taken him because he was viewed as a winner.

Notice the number of Hall of Fame coaches Rodman played for: Chuck Daley (Pistons), Phil Jackson (Bulls), and Greg Popovich (Spurs).  These were coaches who had a firm grip on their teams and coached for N.B.A. teams that are all storied franchises as far as management goes.

Similarly, Donald Trump in many ways is like Dennis Rodman.  You will go crazy trying to understand him with “conventional wisdom.”

Those who understand him best are those who don’t try to constrain and contain him.  They stand back and marvel at his ability to use the tool of “misdirection” to confuse his enemies.

Trump told us during the 2016 campaign that he likes to keep people guessing about him and his policies; well, he has not disappointed us in this regard.

Rodman wearing a dress had nothing to do with his prolific rebounding on the court, having led the NBA in rebounds seven straight years or him being named to seven NBA All-Defensive First teams; and most did not realize at the time that Rodman was paid $ 10 million dollars for wearing that dress.  Now tell me who is the fool.

Many cringed at Rodman’s off the court antics and his total honesty when reporters asked him questions; but not one person in the N.B.A. would ever say Rodman didn’t make every team he played for better.

Similarly, people cringe at Trump’s tweets, his bluntness in media interviews, and his constant stream of consciousness in front of the media; but this is the same guy that got his tax cut in 2017 that gave us a bullish economy, that broke the ice with North Korea by doing a face to face, and put America’s interest above other nations.

Democrats, the radical liberal media, and never Trumpers are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how Trump won the nomination in 2016, yet alone the presidency.

Their conclusion is that Trump voters are stupid, ignorant, white supremacists, white nationalists, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, crazy, etc.

Despite the drama that constantly surrounds this president, most Americans believe he is fighting for the rights of and supremacy of America.

Most of the foreign leaders I talk to about Trump have great respect for his singular focus of putting the interests of America first and not the wishes of the European Union, NATO, or the United Nations which are all controlled by radical liberal globalist elites.

These foreign leaders are all amazed that its taken this long for an American president to put their own country first.

So, Americans had to decide whether they wanted to win the global Mr. Congeniality contest like we did with former president Obama and were made to look weak; or elect Dennis Rodman, er Trump, and win championships, i.e., advancing a conservative agenda.

America overwhelmingly chose Dennis Rodman.  America no longer wanted to lose with style, Obama; but rather they wanted to win with blood on their uniforms because they were in a fight.

Winning is winning.  There is absolutely no consolation in losing!

Those who support Trump are loyal to him, despite all of his eccentricities, because they see in him a fighter, yes maybe even a bully; but he is fighting for values they believe in:  marriage between man and woman, genders are either male or female, protection of religious freedoms, pro-life, America’s interest above global elites.

Why other American presidents sold us out is a big question.  Trump’s ascendancy to the presidency is America’s response to our globalist political elites from both parties here in the U.S.

Trump doesn’t seem to care about being popular; but rather advancing the cause of America around the world.  And for this he is considered racist, isolationist, and xenophobic?

Really?

In the immortal words of my boy, Niccolo Machiavelli, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

Obama feared not being loved and America lost; Trump hates not being feared and America is winning.

VIDEO: Watch ‘DEMageddon’ — The Epic Tale of the 2016 Election

Carpe Donktum (@CarpeDonktum) tweeted:

Just found out that after ONE YEAR in YouTube Jail, my epic Meme Movie DEMageddon is now available on YouTube again!

Enjoy the epic tale of the 2016 election!

Please visit Carpe Donktum’s YouTube channel (if it is still up) no pun intended.

Texas: Former Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne to Run for Congress

Former popular Irving Mayor, Beth Van Duyne has departed her post at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s office in Fort Worth, Texas. She has announced on social media on August 5th that she plans to run for the United States Congress, district 24, which covers parts of Dallas, Tarrant and Denton counties.

Those of us who have been following Beth’s incredible career in the City of Irving, are very excited that she has decided to announce her candidacy for the United States Congress, District 24. A person of her outstanding principles is urgently needed in Washington, even though she will be missed here at home.

Beth, started her public service as far back as some ten years ago when she worked tirelessly for building a children’s park — to help her community’s children spend their vital energy in building strong bodies so that they could better shoulder the future demands that awaits them.

Next, she ran for City Council, and later served with distinction as mayor of Irving. And when the call came from President Trump’s administration, she, characteristically, offered her much-valued services.

Now, Texas and the nation need her in Washington, and once again she is willingly answers the call for service in the United States Congress where she can be a resonant voice for principled Conservatism that has made this country the standard bearer for democracy and freedom.

Our nation today is in dire need of firm leadership, courage, and responsibility for advancing bipartisan legislation, including bills, joint, concurrent and simple resolutions in Congress. In addition, to understand the political environment and the impact of decision making on diverse groups. Beth has these qualities and one inherent ability to fundamental leadership: courage. She also is very charismatic, enthusiastic, optimistic, and passionate about America. That’s the most important quality of all.

America is a nation and an ideal, birthed by a group of visionaries that gave it the Constitution to nurture it and protect it. What makes America, America the Beautiful, more than just a blessed land is our legacy, the Constitution. Sadly, the Constitution also makes for America the Vulnerable by enshrining freedom that enables the malevolent to subvert and destroy America from within. Beth Van Duyne is an avid supporter of the United State Constitution. In fact, during her tenure as a mayor, she proved that America has only one law and that is our Constitution. On her Facebook page, the mayor wrote:

“Sharia Law Court was NOT approved or enacted by the City of Irving. Recently, there have been rumors suggesting that the City of Irving has somehow condoned, approved or enacted the implementation of a Sharia Law Court in our City. Let me be clear, neither the City of Irving, our elected officials or city staff have anything to do with the decision of the mosque that has been identified as starting a Sharia Court.”

Freedom, in all its forms, is our greatest legacy, which this nation has bravely fought many wars on many fronts to preserve against the unceasing assaults of totalitarianism of all stripes.

I applaud Van Duyne tasking and courageous decision and offer her my full support in sending her to the United States Congress. I am certain that the wise patriotic Texans of District 24 will rise and stand behind her. Although we will miss her here at home, we feel that her service in Congress fully justifies her absence from the community.

In short, America and our party are at a turning point. The reign of the rigid old Republican establishment is coming to an end by a new generation of principled conservatives. Beth Van Duyne represents this class of Republicans, destined to restore the party that stands for the best hopes of all Americans.

64% Of Federal Arrests Were Of Non-Citizens In 2018, DOJ Finds

Federal arrests of non-citizens has increased exponentially over the past two decades, and account for the majority of all federal arrests, data released by the Justice Department revealed.

Non-citizens made up 64% of all federal arrests in 2018 despite making up 7% of the U.S. population, according to Justice Department data released Thursday and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Between 1998 and 2018, federal arrests of non-citizens grew by 234%, while federal arrests of U.S. citizens climbed 10%.

While the numbers provide credence to President Donald Trump’s argument that illegal immigration results in increased crime, immigration experts also pointed out that migrant apprehensions make up a significant portion of current federal arrests.

“Experience has taught the immigration agencies and DOJ that this works to reduce recidivism — in other words, when illegal crossers face some more severe consequence than just being sent back home, they don’t keep doing it,” Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies told the Washington Examiner.

Trump made increased immigration enforcement a hallmark goal of his administration. His efforts at beefing up border security and providing additional funding to the Customs and Border Protection have yielded satisfactory results. Federal immigration apprehensions climbed more than 50,000 from 2017 to 2018, according to the Justice Department data.

Ninety-five percent of the increase in federal arrests over the past 20 years were, in fact, due to immigration offenses, the Justice Department data found. Non-citizens accounted for 28% of all federal fraud arrests, 25% of all federal property arrests, and 24% of all federal drug arrests. The Justice Department identified the top five crimes non-citizens were most likely be prosecuted for: illegal re-entry, drugs, fraud, alien smuggling and misuse of visas.

“Opponents of immigration enforcement are obsessed with trying to establish that illegal aliens and legal immigrants commit fewer crimes than Americans, and so, as their narrative goes, local law enforcement agencies should not cooperate with ICE and should adopt sanctuary policies,” Vaughan continued in her statement. “This is first of all not true, but is off-point and a dangerous conclusion.”

COLUMN BY

JASON HOPKINS

Immigration and politics reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Hundreds Of Illegal Migrants Carry Criminal Histories, DHS Investigation Finds

109 US Counties Have Become Majority Non-White Since 2000, Analysis Finds

Just 20 Miles From White House, Illegal Immigrant Rape Cases Keep Piling Up

New Report Shows Taxpayers Lost BIG TIME Last Year Because Of ‘Non-Citizens”

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Rejecting Every Premise Of The New York Times 1619 Project

There are a lot of lies, factual errors, misrepresentations, selective history and general nonsense in the New York Times’ 1619 project that are worthy of rejection.

According to the Times:

“The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.”

It is worth rejecting that slavery should be placed “at the very center” of our history. Was it a large and terrible part? Yes. It caused misery culminating in a bloody Civil War and its legacy endured through Jim Crow. But at the very center? Not the religious freedom that brought the first Pilgrims in Massachusetts? Not the idea of an upside down government that dethroned the king and put the people on the top and the government subservient (“for the people and by the people”?) That was a first in history, while slavery was a universal part of world history on every continent and among every race — both enslaving and being enslaved.

On the cover the 1619 Project, overlaying on a full-page black and white picture of a very dark ocean, are these words:

“In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.”

Picking 1619 is the worst of “journalistic” cherry-picking. There was no America until 1776. Before that, Florida and other South and Southwestern areas were variously Spanish colonies, or French colonies, and finally most were British colonies — all before the American Revolution created the new nation. Slavery ran most of its life in North America when we were all British subjects, or Spanish and French subjects.

This is crucial, because all of these nations — and all of the rest of the world — were practicing slavery at this time and had from time immemorial. Slavery was part of the Asian world, a large part of the Muslim world, practiced throughout Central and South America even before the first Conquistadors arrived, and importantly for our discussion, rampant through Africa by other Africans.

Most of the slaves transported to America were not captured by white slavers as depicted in the movie Roots. That happened, but the majority were simply bought from Africans who had enslaved nearby tribes they had conquered. It was a facet of Africa like it was the rest of the world, and to call it a uniquely American evil is factually wrong and dishonest. It was — and still is — a worldwide evil.

Slavery in the United States of America ran 87 years from 1776-1863. Or in President Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, “Four score and seven years ago…” Just a fact, something journalists used to care about.

A common lie told today by leftists, and it is repeated in the Time’s 1619 Project by several of the writers, is that the “white men” who created the Constitution, did not see black people as fully human and not worthy of rights. This is also factually wrong. The northern colonies were packed with abolitionists — white people — who argued that this was the moment to end the atrocity of slavery, at the outset of the new nation. But there were other white people in the southern colonies, slave holders, who would not agree to form a single country to fight for freedom from British rule if emancipation were included.

It’s possible that the majority of the framers preferred to free blacks and give them rights in the newly formed country. But freedom could not be won unless all the colonies were bound together against the greatest empire on earth at the time. So the painful compromise was made to win freedom from Britain. And then, within a few generations, a bloody Civil War was fought almost entirely by white people to free the slaves. (About 90 percent of Union troops were white.)

The Times ignores this and misrepresents world history, our history and the founders and framers, by saying all of the framers saw blacks as subhuman. The publication is intent on doing this because as modern leftists they have an almost instinctive antipathy toward America and the very idea of American greatness. But more relevant to the moment, they are doing this literally to help beat Donald Trump and Republicans in 2020.

It does not require any special analytical abilities to deduce this. Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet essentially says so.

A recording of a full Times staff meeting was leaked to Slate last week, which then published a transcript of it. Baquet held this staff meeting two weeks ago to explain a coming change in coverage after the collapse of the Trump-Russia narrative.

“Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”

Pulitzers are award by like-minded leftists. Only one type of story wins those. But despite two years and virtually unlimited legal and financial resources, Mueller failed to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. Which essentially means those years of reporting got it wrong. But Pulitzers.

Baquet went on, and this really pulls the veil back:

“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

But Pulitzers — unless of course they were just political accolades by fellow travelers and not about actual journalism.

Baquet:

“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well…Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

That is, a different angle of attack on President Trump, since Trump-Russia it turns out was never really a story. The real story the Times will not tell is how we got a two-year special counsel investigation of an event that did not happen. Baquet, not knowing this would become public of course, just puts it out there openly.

“I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?”

Divided by Trump. Amazing. Baquet said the Times must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”

And there it is. The 1619 Project.

“It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

“Reframing” history is just a deceptive way of saying “rewrite” history. And there is no conceivable way this does not inflame racial tensions and make us more divided. And understand, most news outlets across the country take their cue on story importance and framing from the New York Times.

The first lines of the massive project let it all hang out.

“Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true…”

No. Another premise to reject that just flat wrong. Blacks did indeed fight to earn their claim to them, as did whites. But the ideals were true and right — changing support for values does not in any way alter the moral standing of the values themselves. That would be self-evident to a non propagandist. Those ideas simply were imperfectly implemented, as mentioned above.

Our nation’s story actually is one of consistently moving closer to those ideals, striving through emancipation in the 19th century to the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. Blacks have been fully equal to whites under the law in this country for 50 years.

But the Times will never tell that story.

Baquet told his staff that over the next two years, the Times will “teach” its readers to see race everywhere, to view every issue through race. Stories will strive to “reframe” each issue through the lens of race. The next two years just coincidentally happen to cover the entire presidential election cycle.

And that brings us to the final premise to reject: That the New York Times is a news organization. It is not. And it has not been for a long while. But it took its own mask off now. It is virtually self-described now as an anti-American, leftist, Democratic propaganda outlet — with some news stories sprinkled in.

No independent-minded person should think otherwise.

RELATED ARTICLE: The New York Times 1959 Project—Similar to Their 1619 Project

RELATED VIDEO: “Propaganda” For NYT’s “1619 Project” To Claim American Revolution Was About Protecting Slavery.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Islamists and Neo-Nazis Are Not Opposites – On the Contrary

You may think that Islamists and neo-Nazis/white supremacists are complete opposites. After all, they’re willing to take physical violence against each other to the streets. Both use the threat of the other one as a recruiting tool to boost numbers.

But their bitter enmity is surface level. When we look at the views of Islamists and neo-Nazis/white supremacists — what we will call for simplicity, the Far Right — we start to see the similarities.

For groups that hate each other, Islamists and the Far Right tend to talk about a lot of the same things.

Here are just a few of the views they share:

  • They hate gay people
  • They hate democracy
  • They hate Jews
  • They think women should stay at home to bear and raise children
  • They support use of extreme violence against their enemies
  • They are both obsessed with group identity
  • They are both obsessed with masculinity and the concept of “honor”

These are not accidental similarities. And, in truth, they are not different movements doing different things: They are fundamentally the same idea, just expressed in different cultures. 

Before the French Revolution, societies were governed by monarchies, who ruled in accordance with the principles of their particular religion.

They may have claimed Divine right, or simply ruled in the name of a particular faith. The state was considered an extension of the family, with the King or the Emperor’s family at the head of it. He had a right to rule, just as a man had the right to rule over his household.

There was no concept of sovereignty of the people or universal rights or any of those ideas. There was certainly no separation of religion and state.

If you are interested in how societies transitioned into the ones we have now, see Clarion Project’s series on the First Amendment.

Since the late 18th century, a series of revolutions, starting in America, Haiti and France, brought democracy to the world. With it, they brought the concept of civil rights, separation of religion and state, rights for women, an end to slavery and a host of other positive transformations.

Both the Far Right and Islamists seek to reverse those gains. The objective of any genuinely neo-Nazi program is to empower a strong and powerful leader to create a powerful authoritarian state.

This project, it is thought, will bring honor and victory to the community, instead of the liberalism and decadence of the modern secular world.

Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist ideologue Sayyid Qutb’s febrile rantings about the raw sensuality of the American woman mirror the Nazi slogan of the woman’s role as restricted to “Kinder, Kirche, Kuche” (children, church, cooking).

Its misogyny and its broader political program go hand-in-hand: The power of the male in the home mirrors the power of the state in general — and the power of the state brings honor of the people.

It is violent machismoism taken to its ultimate conclusion and extreme.

Both Islamists and the Far Right look to the Crusades for their example. Online images of knights, in particular the Knights Templar, are used by the Far Right; Islamists glorify Saladin, the Crusaders’ nemisis.

The reason Islamists and the neo-Nazis both use rhetoric and symbolism from the Middle Ages and other pre-modern periods is that they see themselves in that context.

They view all of recent history as one giant mistake – a mistake that needs to be rectified through the point of a sword.

Perhaps this is why Vona Gábor, the head of the Hungarian Far-Right party Jobbik, praised Islam as a bulwark against globalization in 2018.

The connection of the Third Reich to Islamist extremism is well documented. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem personally met Hitler, and raised units of Muslim soldiers to fight for the Nazis. Muslim Brotherhood founder and leader Hassan al-Banna was so enamored of Hitler that he had Mein Kampf translated into Arabic.

The Islamist/neo-Nazi position takes same attitude to the world, just reflected through different cultural lenses. Once this is understood, combating both positions at the same time becomes a whole lot simpler.

RELATED STORIES

Rebranding the White Supremacy Movement in the US 

White Supremacists Alive and Well in Canada 

CAIR: Hard on White Supremacists, Soft on Islamist Supremacists

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Hong Kong — A Catholic Protest?

Catholic Vote TV published the following comment and video.

A spiritual story you haven’t heard.

RELATED ARTICLES:

USCCB Chairmen Applaud Proposed Regulations Preventing Government Discrimination Against Faith-Based Federal Contractors

Trump signs executive order cancelling student loan debt for disabled veterans

DHS Using Loophole Around Flores To Address Immigration Crisis

Reps. Tlaib, Omar claim Israel is neither an ally nor a democracy

“Denying visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally. And denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self determination is not consistent with being a democracy.”

The sponsors of their trip have been linked to anti-Semitism and jihad terrorism. They had nothing to say about that.

The reason why the freedom of movement of any “Palestinian” is restricted is because of “Palestinian” genocidal incitement and celebration of the jihad murder of Israeli civilians. They had nothing to say about that.

The “Palestinians” have turned down numerous peace offers from Israel, not content with anything other than the total destruction of Israel, as I show in my forthcoming book The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process. They had nothing to say about that.

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar denounce Israel’s travel restrictions during press conference,” by Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, August 19, 2019:

Standing side by side on Monday, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar forcefully denounced the controversial decision by the Israeli government to deny them entry into the country, casting the travel restrictions as part of a broader effort to suppress voices of dissent against the treatment of Palestinians in occupied and disputed territories.

“Netanyahu’s decision to deny us entry might be unprecedented for members of Congress,” Omar said during a press conference, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “But it is the policy of his government when it comes to Palestinians. This is the policy of his government when it comes to anyone who holds views that threaten the occupation.”

“The only way to preserve unjust policy is to suppress people’s freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of movement,” Omar added….

The Israeli government did offer to let Tlaib in on humanitarian grounds to visit her 90-year-old Palestinian grandmother on the condition that she did not promote a boycott of Israel. Tlaib initially agreed, but later rejected the offer, saying she would not make the visit under “oppressive conditions.”

Getting visibly emotional, Tlaib said she made the decision to not accept the conditional travel permit after consulting with her grandmother and other family members.

“Through tears, at three o’clock in the morning, we all decided as a family that I could not go until I was a free, American United States Congresswoman coming there, not only to see my grandmother but to talk to Palestinian and Israeli organizations that believed that my grandmother deserves human dignity as much as anyone else does,” she said….

Omar suggested the travel restrictions contradict longstanding beliefs by Republican and Democratic administrations that Israel is one of America’s most steadfast allies and the sole true democracy in the Middle East.

“Denying visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally,” she said. “And denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self determination is not consistent with being a democracy.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

It’s all about the Benjamins: Far-Left group fundraises on Tlaib/Omar Israel ban

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered”

Al Jazeera Bemoans the Celebration, in Italy, of Oriana Fallaci

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Socialism Is Theft—Why Are Candidates Espousing It?

I recently preached a sermon on the subject of stealing in our church’s series on the Ten Commandments. And one of the points I made is that socialism is a form of theft.

I mentioned the slogan going around during the 1960s—“property is theft.”

But the Bible says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Implied in that commandment is the sanctity of private property—I’m not allowed to simply take it because someone else owns it. And the Bible does not say, “Thou shalt not steal, unless thou art the government.”

Socialism is a form of governmental theft. The government has no money of its own. It simply forcibly takes from Citizen A and gives to Citizen B. But, of course, the one who benefits the most from this socialistic scheme is Citizen C, the government bureaucrat who administers the welfare state.

Some of the wealthiest counties in the entire nation are the bedroom communities in the greater Washington, D. C. area, where government workers live, who administer all the many wealth transfer programs for our country.

To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw: if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s vote.

The Bible teaches us to help the needy. That is all voluntary. That is the church’s job. When the government gets involved in the “charity business,” it is not only wasteful, it undermines the family, human dignity, and self-reliance.

It’s one thing to have a safety net for those who may fall through the cracks. It’s another thing to grow the size of the federal government and our national debt more and more with never-ending spending until one day, the whole thing explodes.

Meanwhile, we have leading Democrat presidential candidates who want to add more and more to our federal government spending. According to a Fox News poll, Elizabeth Warren is up to 20 percent as of August 16, and Bernie Sanders up to 10 percent. That represents a lot of Americans apparently buying into a socialist-type message.

Senator Warren may chafe at one using the term “socialist” to describe her policies. But big government is big government by any other name. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: Big government, small liberty.

One of Elizabeth Warren’s big promises is to forgive student loans. It’s tragic that so many young people have become so loaded with college debt. But these student loans are freely assumed debts. Why should everyone else be forced to pay for them?

What’s ironic about it is that many of these costly degrees really don’t confer much value in terms of gainful employment.

It reminds me of the joke about two women, who hadn’t seen each other in a while, had an encounter at the supermarket. One woman asked the other about her three children. One son had become a poet and had just received his master’s degree in literature. The daughter just graduated from college with a degree in modern art. But the third son? She sheepishly shared, “Well, you know Freddy. Freddy is still Freddy. He wouldn’t go to college—he became a plumber instead. By the way, if it weren’t for him, we’d all be starving.”

Virginia Prodan, an international human rights attorney, grew up under Communist Romania. She strives to warn Americans to never go down the socialist path. She came to the U.S. during the Reagan years, essentially as a political refugee. She wrote a book about her miraculous escape from an assassination attempt in her book, Saving My Assassin. I have interviewed her on the radio a few times.

She told me, “Socialism is the government starting to lie to you about free things, and you believe them…then the government establishes socialism. It gains power and transforms into a communist [state].”

If you disagree with the government under such a scheme, she notes, they will “kill you and take your property.” In other words, socialism is the gateway to communism.

When I asked her about why socialism was so popular today among young people in America, she responded, “They have been deceived by the same lies my parents and relatives had been deceived by, so many years ago—lies that led Romania to be transformed from a free country to a repressive, socialist government.”

Prodan notes that, “Few Americans know, even those who are dream about socialism, that the socialist leader, Vladimir Lenin, declared that ‘Liberty is so precious that it must be carefully rationed to ordinary people.’ Ordinary people are you and me.”

How many times must humanity, including parts of America, go down the socialist path before we realize the emperor has no clothes? The government has no money trees. We should listen to survivors of socialism and communism, like Virginia Prodan, rather than politicians who are essentially trying to buy votes with taxpayers’ money.

© All rights reserved.

The Omar-Tlaib affair: Tough questions for AIPAC

Notwithstanding AIPAC’s discomfort over the Omar-Tlaib case, there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in its joining the general assault on Israel.

The brouhaha over the ruckus that erupted last Thursday between the Netanyahu government and the two radical, anti-Israeli Congresswomen, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), refuses to subside.

It continues to generate headlines even after almost a week since Israel reversed its original decision to allow them to visit the country—invoking a 2017 law that permits the government to bar entry to foreign citizens, who support anti-Israel boycotts. Coincidentally—or not—this dramatic change of heart took place soon after President Trump posted a somewhat caustic tweet, deriding Israel’s previous position to permit their arrival.

Thus, on Monday (8.19.2019), the two held a well-choreographed and emotive press conference , unsurprisingly well-covered in the international media, in which they lambasted Israel for its heavy-handed “oppression” of the Palestinians and its “undemocratic” prohibition of their planned trip. Likewise, they urged other US law-makers to visit Israel to discover for themselves the “iniquitous realities” that, according to them, prevail here.

Israel’s perceived capitulation to Trumpian pressure sparked wall-to-wall condemnation from the Democratic Party—even from long-standing Israel supporters. A good number of pundits warned that the barring of the Democratic Congresswomen could herald the end of the era of bipartisan support for Israel, and expressed concern over what might await it in a post-Trump era—or at least, a post-Republican era.

Clearly, the requested visit by two of Israel most vehement detractors created an extremely awkward situation for the Netanyahu government. Equally clearly, the government’s clumsy vacillation in dealing with the problem was anything but flawless, and created a number of irksome questions marks as to its conduct—for itself and for its advocates in the public arena.

However, despite any misgiving one may have over the government’s handling of the “hot potato” left at its doorstep, the Omar-Tlaib episode—and the intensity of the reactions to it—raise several troubling issues.

Bipartisanship: At what price?

The first of these is the question of the price that Israel is called upon to preserve bi-partisan support for it.  After all, no-one can assume that the two fiercely anti-Israel Congresswomen would not exploit their stay in Israel to inflict the maximum possible damage on it—irrespective of any “inconvenient facts” they might have happened to encounter on it.

Accordingly, if Israel is required to forsake important national interests in order to appease a party, in which some of its most prominent members are viscerally opposed to the Jewish state, one might very well question the value—even, the very point—of preserving such bi-partisanship. Indeed, at some point, bi-partisanship may well cease to be an invaluable asset and become a burdensome liability instead!

In this regard, perhaps the most telling—and most surprising—censure came from the prestigious and powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, which, as a rule, has consistently backed the decisions of the Israeli government—virtually without exception.  Accordingly, public reproach from an organization so closely identified with pro-Israel advocacy is, without doubt, extraordinarily significant.  Of course, for AIPAC, the issue of bi-partisanship is an almost sacred value, the very “holy grail” of its political influence. Indeed, it attributes—with considerable justification—much of its political stature and sway to its ability to harness such bi-partisan support for Israel. It is thus, clearly understandable that it will react negatively to any development that appears to threaten that ability.

AIPAC’s hypocrisy?

However, not withstanding AIPAC’s discomfort in the Omar-Tlaib case, there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in its joining the general assault on Israel.

After all, it would be difficult—even impossible—to imagine that the AIPAC leadership would extend an invitation to either Omar or to Tlaib to address its annual convention, and to provide them an opportunity to publicly berate Israel and blacken its name with baseless accusations.

Accordingly, the trenchant question that this raises is the following: If AIPAC would not permit access to Omar and Tlaib to allow them a platform to denigrate Israel, why would it find fault with Israel for not permitting them access to a very similar platform?

This, then, is the question, which should be directed at the AIPAC leadership—and which they should be called on to address.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel Right to Shut Out the Hostile Voices of Tlaib and Omar

Judicial Watch Major Court Victory: Montgomery County, Maryland Must Clean up Voter Rolls!

Since we are on the subject of sanctuary county—Montgomery County, MD (see my previous post)—here is a bit of good news for a change!  (Hat tip: Cathy)

Thank God for Judicial Watch!  Note that it took TWO full years before the county is being forced to comply.

From JW’s press release:

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FEDERAL COURT ORDERS MARYLAND TO PRODUCE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST DATA TO JUDICIAL WATCH

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has ordered the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County, the state’s biggest county. The court ruling comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). The decision follows NVRA-related Judicial Watch successes in California and Kentucky that could lead to removal of up to 1.85 million inactive voters from voter registration lists. The NVRA requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up its voting rolls and to make documents about its voter list maintenance practices available to anyone who asks.

Judicial Watch had sought the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could register.

[….]

The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11, 2017, notice letter sent to Maryland election officials, in which Judicial Watch explained Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate. The letter threatened a lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County’s voter rolls were not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any “programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of Maryland’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years.”

Democrat Maryland officials, in response, attacked and smeared Judicial Watch by suggesting it was an agent of Russia.

More here.

Just a reminder!  Maryland is run by the Dems even as it has a Republican (never Trumper!) governor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Things to Know About Trump’s New Voter Fraud Claim

Another Rape in Montgomery County, MD, Sanctuary to Illegals

Trump Administration to Close Loophole Blocking Immigration Enforcement

The New York Times Works for the Left, and Now Everyone Should Know It

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

“Jews who vote democrat have a lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.” — President Donald Trump [Videos]

Posted by Eeyore

This seems like the right time to re-post this important clip from Israeli TV, where a well known and accomplished Israeli intellectual, predicts that Leftist Jews, will bring unto themselves a pogram from the USA for their failure to support President Donald Trump. The only leader in these times who is both willing and capable of supporting the United States as a non-communist polity, as well as a firm defender of the state of Israel.

It is my sincere hope that should this predicted pogrom come to pass, Israel will not allow in the leftist Jews who caused it, just as they would not allow in Tlaib and Omar. In fact, this kind of treason from within is far more dangerous than clear and obvious enemies of both nations, and freedom and individualism itself.

At the end of the day, “I”, not we here at VladTepesBlog, but I myself only, agree with President Trump 100%. I cannot speak for other readers or contributors of this site on this issue. But I stand with president Trump on this 100%.

© All rights reserved.

THEATER OF THE ABSURD: Democrats go from screeching ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ to ‘Recession, Recession, Recession!’

The Democratic Party has for some time now focused entirely on one thing and one thing only – President Donald J. Trump. Their rhetoric has given rise to the likes of Antifa. Their rhetoric has caused the shooting of members of Congress to the harassment of members of the Trump cabinet in public places. It has gone from holding up the severed head of President Trump by a comedian to the mock assassination of the President at a Democratic fundraiser in Illinois. It has become a game of pin-a-name on President Trump, and his supporters, leading to violent protests in Portland, Oregon.

But now the attacks are directly against the American people.

It began with Bill Maher saying that he wants America to go into a recession so that President Trump does not win a second term in office. Watch.

For Democrats it’s no longer the economy, it’s the narrative stupid!

The Democratic Party has gone off the rails when it embraces the idea that it must destroy America and every American in order to win back the White House in 2020 by creating a recession. Something that they’re actually good at dating back to FDR, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

The concern is that Democrats will actually succeed in tearing down our economy. Their policies are designed to do just that if they win the White House  – destroy America from within. From raising taxes to 90% on the successful job creators, to the Green New Deal’s goal of saving the planet by instituting a Marxist government. Their ideas are designed to gain control of something government should never control, the economy. Just look at the former Soviet Union, Cuba and most recently Valenzuela.

President Trump understands that it really is the economy stupid.

He’s doing everything he can as the Chief Executive to reduce spending, cut regulation and lower taxes. His campaign promise is to “Keep America Great.” The only way to keep America great is to unleash its full potential. That means giving power back to the people.

As newly elected President Trump said during his inaugural address:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another — but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished — but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered — but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes — starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.

We will see what the Democrats come up with as their slogan for 2020. Whatever it is it can’t beet MAGA and KAG.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Rooting for Recession

The left stokes racist flames and demonizes millions

House Democrats consider action against Israeli and U.S. ambassadors over banning of Tlaib and Omar

Senior Democratic members of Congress are “are considering releasing a statement of no confidence” in Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer and “opening an inspector-general investigation” into U.S. envoy to Israel David Friedman over Israel’s decision to ban Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from entering Israel.

The Democratic lawmakers are advancing the idea that Omar and Tlaib were banned from Israel because they are Muslim; nothing could be further from the truth. The Dems:

raised an incident in 1975 in which Henry Waxman, a longtime Democratic congressman from California, was initially banned from Saudi Arabia for his Jewish roots. He was eventually granted entry following pressure from the State Department.

Friedman’s endorsement of Israel’s decision to bar Omar and Tlaib’s entry into the country broke with that precedent, they argued, and as a result called for an investigation “the role the ambassador played in barring them from entering the country.”

The Waxman case is completely different from that of Omar and Tlaib. Waxman was banned from Saudi Arabia because he was Jewish, while Omar and Tlaib have been banned from Israel because they are a security threat to the Jewish state. They were going there with the intention of furthering the Palestinian jihad against Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained when he defended his decision on the basis that the “the two intended to use the visit to harm Israel.” He stated:

“Several days ago, we received [Omar and Tlaib’s] trip itinerary,” Netanyahu said, “which clarified that they planned a visit whose sole purpose was to support boycotts and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For example, they called their destination ‘Palestine’ and not ‘Israel,’ and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress before them, they did not seek any meeting with any Israeli official, whether government or opposition.”

Omar and Tlaib have brought to the forefront a fact that has been virtually ignored since 1948: that the aim of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and every other Palestinian movement is to obliterate the state of Israel. Accusations against Israel about “racism,” “apartheid,” and the so-called “occupation” are intended to delegitimize the Jewish state. When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared that “not a single Israeli” would live in a future Palestinian state, that was a demonstration of apartheid.

As Robert Spencer writes:

Omar and Tlaib are not just Congresswomen with opinions that are critical of Israel. They are not just spokesmen; they are activists. They are active apologists for the jihad terror networks Hamas and Hizballah.

In 2017, Israel passed a law that barred entry to those advocating for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and “Israel’s Interior and Strategic Affairs Ministries have denied visas to students, activists and artists who have a proven record of publicly calling for the boycott of Israel.” Tlaib and Omar not only advocate for BDS; they also sponsored a bill in Congress to support it, and Tlaib has compared the boycott of Israel to the American boycott of Nazi Germany.

Without the support of useful idiots, the relentless Palestinian jihad would not have advanced into Congress and continued its dogged efforts there. In the words of Rashida Tlaib:

The more they try to silence us, our voices rise. The more they try to weaken us, the stronger we become.

But in reality, the supporters of BDS and other anti-Israel initiatives are emboldened by the weakness they perceive in their opposition.

Report: House Democrats Weighing Action Against Israeli, U.S. Envoys over Tlaib, Omar Ban,” by Deborah Danan, Breitbart, August 18, 2019:

TEL AVIV – Senior Democratic members of Congress are said to have launched discussions to formally censure the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Jerusalem’s envoy in Washington over Israel’s decision to bar entry to congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

Around a dozen lawmakers, several of whom are Jewish, have begun talks to communicate a “deep lack of confidence and trust” in Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer and U.S. envoy to Israel David Friedman, the McClatchy news service reported, citing congressional sources.

According to the report, the Democrats are considering releasing a statement of no confidence in Dermer and opening an inspector-general investigation into Friedman.

Among the twelve are House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel and House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, two Jewish lawmakers from New York.

“We are reviewing all of our options,” McClatchy quoted a source as saying. “With Dermer, the issue is that there already was a severe lack of trust. But now there is a severe lack of confidence. It is completely unclear that he represents his government given he has made promises that he has not kept and wasn’t clear if he ever had any chance of keeping.”

Last month, Dermer assured lawmakers that Omar and Tlaib — open supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — would be allowed into Israel “out of respect for Congress.”

However, on Thursday, Israel said the two would be denied entry.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a statement defending the decision to bar entry to Omar and Tlaib, said the two intended to use the visit to harm Israel.

“Several days ago, we received [Omar and Tlaib’s] trip itinerary,” Netanyahu said, “which clarified that they planned a visit whose sole purpose was to support boycotts and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For example, they called their destination ‘Palestine’ and not ‘Israel,’ and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress before them, they did not seek any meeting with any Israeli official, whether government or opposition.”

On Friday, Omar claimed that she had planned to meet with Knesset members and security officials, although the jam-packed itinerary — released days before their planned visit — showed otherwise.

The trip, according to the itinerary, would be based exclusively in the Palestinian territories with the exception of the first day that would take place in the primarily Arab-populated eastern area of Jerusalem. The two were slated to meet only with Palestinian officials as well as representatives from human rights groups and other organizations.

The congresswomen were scheduled to meet with representatives from Palestinian groups Miftah, a sponsor of the trip, and the Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), groups that have endorsed terrorism and have ties to terror organizations.

“In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister said that Tlaib was welcome to apply to visit on humanitarian grounds to see her family, with the caveat that she not engage in promoting boycotts of Israel while in the country. Tlaib acquiesced, and quickly received permission to visit. However, she changed her mind hours later, saying that coming to Israel on its terms would be “humiliating” and she would not “bow down to their oppressive & racist policies.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who recently led a large Democratic delegation to Israel, issued a statement Thursday censuring Israel over the decision and said it contradicted what he and others had been told by Dermer.

McClatchy quoted the source as saying, “Dermer is saying privately that he expects this to go away within a day — it’s a real lack of understanding on the consequences of this.”

In the discussions Friday, the lawmakers raised an incident in 1975 in which Henry Waxman, a longtime Democratic congressman from California, was initially banned from Saudi Arabia for his Jewish roots. He was eventually granted entry following pressure from the State Department…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rashida Tlaib Blames ‘Senior’ Democrats After Partnership With Terror-Linked Group Draws Backlash

Tlaib attends Shabbat event with far-Left Jewish pro-BDS group after rejecting Israel visit

Ilhan Omar Falsely Claims That ‘White Men’ Are Greater Threat Than Jihadis

Rashida Tlaib’s media darling grandmother on Donald Trump: “May Allah ruin him”

RELATED VIDEO: Tlaib’s Guest Praised Murderer of 4-Year-Old Einat.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.