MediaMatters exposes who really influenced the election — hint, its not the Russians

/in , , , /by

As political scientist Bernard Cohen put it, the press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling them what to think about.”

The Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed news coverage during the 2016 general election from January 1st to November 8th, 2016. The study  titled “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters” flies in the face of the narrative that the Russians gave the election to Trump. Even MediaMatters for America agrees with the Harvard study and goes further to blame the “Fakestream Media” for Hillary Clinton’s loss.

In a MediaMatters column titled “Post-Mortem: How 2016 Broke Political Journalism” Matt Gertz writes:

The [2016 Presidential] campaign broke political journalism. Despite the vast differences between the two candidates, the message media consumers heard from journalists was that to an equal extent, both candidates were flawed.

In fact, according to Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy, which reviewed an analysis of news reports in major newspapers and cable and broadcast networks from January 1, 2015, through November 7, 2016, the conventional candidate actually received a higher proportion of negative coverage over the course of the campaign.

general-election-media-bias

Chart courtesy of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy.

Gertz goes on to point out:

In a prescient July 2015 essay, reporter and Clinton biographer Jonathan Allen explained that over the course of her career, “coverage of Hillary Clinton differs from coverage of other candidates for the presidency,” and warned that the “difference encourages distortions that will ultimately affect the presidential race.” He pointed out the reason public perception of Clinton is distorted: because “the media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith unless there’s hard evidence otherwise” and outlets are willing to serve as a vector for unhinged, unfair, or false attacks on her character.

Here, according to MediaMatters, is the real reason for Hillary Clinton’s loss in one graphic:

mediamatters-headlines_emails

It was media coverage of Hillary’s email servers, stupid, not the Russians.

Gertz concludes:

Overall, however, editors and executives at major media outlets failed in their responsibility to present to their audience the full picture of the election in proper context, instead providing disproportionate scrutiny to relatively minor Clinton “scandals” in a way that ultimately resulted in a skewed picture of the election.

And that’s because the political press was unable to adapt its methods and practices to a dramatically different election season. In typical elections, news outlets often treat both major presidential candidates as relatively similar — comparing their flaws, scrutinizing their respective scandals, and framing the vote as a choice between two comparable options.

But this was not a normal election between two comparable choices. That sort of equivalency could not hope to provide viewers and readers with an accurate picture of this unusual race. And on balance, the press did not rise to this unique challenge. 

Even after 16 months on the campaign trail, political journalists never figured out how to accurately depict the unprecedented nature of Trump’s candidacy…

[Emphasis added]

So, even MediaMatters says it was the Fakestream Media who did in Hillary Clinton.

RELATED ARTICLE: OBAMA BLAMES RUSSIA For Hillary’s Loss, But NEW HARVARD STUDY Exposes Who REALLY Interfered In Outcome Of Our Elections

RELATED VIDEO: The Worst of MSNBC in 2016.

Obama’s ‘final solution’ for the state of Israel

/in , , , , /by

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. In his speech Kerry outlined President Obama’s “final solution” for the state of Israel.

One phrase struck me. Kerry stated, “Israel can be Jewish or democratic – not both.”

But Israel is already Jewish and democratic. There have been Israeli Arab members of the Knesset ever since the first Knesset elections in 1949. There are currently 17 Arab members of the Knesset, and 59 former Arab members. Kerry asked:

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Israel already recognizes the right of every Israeli citizen, Jew or Arab or Christian or Druz, el al, to vote. Israel has been dealing with terrorism against the Jewish state since 1949 and throughout its history, from ancient Rome to the PLO and HAMAS.

The U.S. continues to defend Israel because it is the basis, the foundation, of our own democratic ideals. Founding Father John Adams in a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp dated February 16, 1808 wrote:

“I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations …

They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more and more happily than any other nation, ancient or modern.”

There are no Jewish members of the PLO nor in HAMAS, which controls the Gaza strip. Additionally, those nations surrounding Israel are Muslim and undemocratic, abiding by shariah laws that reject non-Muslims. Why? Because the Koran says so.

So what is Kerry projecting on behalf of President Obama? What has been, and clearly is, Obama’s “final solution” to end the conflict in the Middle East?

Answer: A Jew free Palestinian state.

Kerry focused on Jewish “settlements” in Judea and Samara, historic land that has belong to and had been occupied by, the Jewish people for thousands of years. Kerry sees these settlements as the existential threat to a two state solution stating:

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election – and I quote – “the era of the two-state solution is over,” end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

Then Kerry asks, “So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?”

May I suggest that a one state solution leads to what now exists in the Jewish state of Israel. A pluralistic society where all segments of the population, regardless of religious affiliation or ethnicity, live in peace side by side as individuals.

Kerry laments:

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

Under a united Jewish state of Israel Palestinians do have access to real political rights, education, transportation systems, serve in the IDF and have enhanced economic opportunities in what is know as “the startup nation.”

If you want to know what an independent Palestinian state would look like and act just look at the Gaza strip. A radicalized Islamic state that is Jew free where its citizens have no political rights and suffer under a regime more interested in arming itself for the sole purpose of killing non-Muslims and an exporter of terrorism globally.

The only option going forward for President-elect Trump is a one state solution.

As David Friedman, President-elect Trump’s nominee to become the ambassador to Israel said in a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November:

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

The two-state solution is dead. Long live the one-state solution.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Barack Obama fooled the Jews and betrayed them once he had their money

Security Council Resolution 2334: The Legal Significance

John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements by Gregg Roman The Los Angeles Times

Obama and Kerry Seek to Make Israel Indefensible

Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento, Director of The United West hosts Dr. Andy Bostom and Ken Abramowitz in studio to deconstruct the devastating decision by the Obama Administration to abstain from voting on the UN National Security Council, regarding the issue of “settlements” in Israel.

The Malice of the Leader of the Democratic Party

/in , , , , , /by

President Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. It is expected that after he leaves office on January 20th, 2017 he will continue to be the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party.

His legacy is the legacy of the Democratic Party.

In my column “How Democrats Fundamentally Changed from the Party of JFK to the Party of BHO” I asked, “Where are the Blue Dog Democrats? Purged from the BHO Party? As Ronald Reagan once said he did not leave the Democratic Party, rather the Democratic Party left him. So it is with many Democrats. The BHO Party has left them in the lurch.”

The Democratic Party has become the party of protests, anarchists and tribalism. They cling to illusions of racism, bigotry and embrace an anti-American world view. 

We have been writing about how President Obama has warmly embraced Islam as a person, as President and as the leader of the Democratic Party. Since his election in 2008 there has been malice, with forethought, against America in general and Israel in particular.

In a May 2015 column Dissected: President Obama’s Anti-Israelism Jerry Gordon wrote:

Both Vic Rosenthal’s Abu Yehuda  blog post, “For Obama it’s a Moral Crusade” and Brett Stephens’ Tuesday Wall Street Journal column,“The Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis” suggest that the President’s comments sinuously convey anti-Israelism.

Rosenthal gives the following evidence:

Some of the reasons I and others find Obama anti-Israel are these:

  1. His stubborn attempts to force Israel into a suicidal agreement with the Palestinians.
  2. His acceptance (regardless of his words) of a nuclear-armed Iran, and his efforts to stop Israel from acting against it.
  3. His open contempt for our Prime Minister.
  4. His taking the Turkish president’s side in the Mavi Marmara affair, and forcing PM Netanyahu to apologize to the Turks.
  5. His acceptance of Hamas claims that the IDF acted ‘disproportionally’ in Gaza (as shown by his demand for an immediate cease-fire and imposition of an arms embargo during the recent war).
  6. The aforementioned leaks about Israeli actions in Syria and elsewhere.
  7. His acceptance of the anti-Israel narrative that Israel’s right to exist rests on the Holocaust and that it must be balanced against the rights of the ‘deserving’ Palestinians (as expressed in his 2009 Cairo speech).
  8. His attempts to interfere in Israeli politics, including trying to defeat Netanyahu at the polls. It’s ironic that American money was used to help get out the presumably anti-Netanyahu Arab vote — and then Obama bitterly criticized Netanyahu for telling his supporters that they should get out and vote because the Arabs were!
  9. The double standard he displays: compare his condemnation of the PM for his election-day remark with his lack of response to the daily barrage of Israel-hatred and veneration of terrorists coming from the official Palestinian media. Or look at his expressed concern for Palestinians suffering the indignities of checkpoints against his failure to mention the almost daily Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism.

I could go on, but this should be enough to show that the belief that Obama is anti-Israel is substantive, not simply a political reflex as he suggests.

Obama and Democratic Party have now shown malice toward Israel.

This malice began when Obama was first elected to the Presidency. His remarks about embracing Israel, and its people, and having their backs was a fabrication, a political calculation to lure them into a spiraling chamber of death.

The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews under Adolf Hitler. President Obama has given the followers of Mohammed another signal that its alright to exterminate the state of Israel – the definition of malice. Obama with one abstention has made possible the unthinkable.

Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, an opponent of Adolf Hitler, wrote, “Not to act is to act, not to speak is to speak.” Obama chose not to act, not to speak, at the United Nations on December 23rd, 2016.

That is his and the Democratic Party’s legacy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

John Bolton: ‘The Two-State Solution Is Dead’

With New Resolution, the UN Drives Stake into Israeli-Palestinian Peace Hopes

Our World: Obama’s war against America

Israel will share ‘evidence’ of Obama-UN collusion with Trump, ambassador says

Netanyahu rips U.S.: ‘Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council’

Israel summons US ambassador over UN vote

Obama’s War on Israel: Netanyahu’s Remarks on UN Resolution at Lighting of the First Chanukah Candle

Security Council Resolution 2334 and a Strategy for Israel

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

Obama’s self-defeating settlements policy

U.S. May Back Additional UN Security Council Moves Tied to Paris Peace Conference

Of Santa, Soccer, and Savior: Wishing Readers a Merry Christmas 2016

/in , /by

For my 2016 Christmas post, I feature two entries from the Ligonier Ministries blog. The posts concern two real individuals: Santa Claus and Jesus Christ.

Both entries are written by president of Reformation Bible College Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

In the first post, Nichols offers some intriguing history about Saint Nick:

Saint Nicholas and the Origins of Santa Claus

It might surprise many today to find out that Saint Nicholas (spoiler alert) is a real person after all. Is he the white-bearded man with a red suit, a cap, and a sleigh?

Not quite, but he probably was bearded, did wear a hat, and did travel in horse-drawn, not reindeer-drawn, transportation. The legend behind Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas, the fourth-century bishop of Myra. His hat was the bishop’s mitre.

Nicholas was born in modern day Turkey to a rather wealthy family. Losing his parents at a young age, Nicholas dedicated both his fortune and his life to the Christian church. Very quickly he was appointed the bishop of Myra, on the southern coast of modern day Turkey.

These were days of persecution for Christians. Roman Emperor Diocletian, who reigned from 284–305, hated Christians and stuffed Roman jails full of them. Bishop Nicholas spent the first few years of the fourth century in jail and faced routine beatings. In the next decade, Constantine legalized Christianity and Nicholas was set free.

As the legend goes, Bishop Nicholas was present at the Church’s First Ecumenical Council at Constantine’s summer palace in Nicea in 325. Hundreds of Bishops gathered there to refute the false views of Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria. Arius denied Christ’s deity. At one point while Arius was addressing the council, Nicholas’s rage got the better of him. According to some of his biographers, Nicholas stood up, crossed the floor to Arius, and promptly punched him in the face.

For the assault, Nicholas found himself back in jail again. The bishops deliberated his fate. Nicholas was repentant and sought forgiveness. After the Council, Constantine granted clemency and restored Bishop Nicholas to his post.

And at his post Bishop Nicholas diligently served. Over the course of his entire life he was known for being extremely generous. He was especially generous to children, regularly giving them gifts. Myra was a busy port city with ships and sailors coming and going. The ships went out of Myra’s port loaded with gifts and goods for the needy, all provided and packed on by Bishop Nicholas. His gifts went all around the Mediterranean world. As sailors went around the world, they took with them the stories of the generosity of Bishop Nicholas.

The year of Bishop Nicholas’s death is uncertain, but the month is firmly believed to be December. As the story of his generosity spread, the stories of his life grew and grew. He was becoming legendary. In the sixth century, a church was dedicated to him and named for him in Constantinople. His image was depicted more in the Middle Ages than any other except those of Christ and of Mary. No longer Bishop Nicholas, now he became Saint Nicholas, and his Feast Day would be December 6.

One of the legends around Nicholas concerned his giving dowries to young poor girls so they would be able to marry. To reflect that legend, images of him carrying bags bulging with gold coins began to appear.

As his legend moved northward, the story takes an even more interesting turn. In Germany, the tradition arose of giving gifts to each other in the name of Saint Nicholas. So, too, in the Netherlands. The Dutch word for him became Sinterklaas. The German word eventually became Santa Claus. These celebrations of gift-giving occurred on December 6, the anniversary of his death. The gift of a gold coin was highly prized and showed great favor.

Even Martin Luther would come to play a role in the legend. Luther wanted a Protestant alternative to the Roman Catholic practice of celebrating the Feast of Saint Nicholas (Santa Claus). Instead of giving gifts in the name of Santa Claus on December 6, Luther started the tradition of giving gifts in the name of the Christ child, Christkindl, on Christmas Eve. Perhaps in this we have an argument for Protestant kids everywhere as to why they should be allowed to open at least one present on Christmas Eve.

Luther loved Christmas. He wanted it to be a celebration of giving around the supreme gift of the babe born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem. As he preached in 1530, “He who lies in the virgin’s lap is our Savior … give thanks to God, who so loved you that he gave you a Savior.”

Christmas evolved from the word Christ Mass, the celebration of the incarnation of Christ, fixed by tradition as being on December 25. The word Luther coined, Christkindl, also evolved over the centuries. It would become Santa Claus’ other name, Kris Kringle. This effort of Luther’s to move away from the Santa Claus tradition inadvertently veered right toward it.

So we have the story of Santa Claus. Interestingly enough, Saint Nicholas and his legend began in the early church. The stories wove their way through the Middle Ages, and they even made an appearance at the Reformation. Those stories still live with us today.

My favorite tidbit: Santa Claus spent time in jail for belting a church official as he defended Christ’s deity.

Go, Santa.

saint-nicholas

Saint Nicholas, via facial reconstruction.

In the next post, Nichols takes readers into a moment of peace during war, and beyond:

The Real Meaning of Christmas

One of the most remarkable stories of Christmas comes from one of the darkest moments of modern history. World War I ravaged a continent, leaving destruction and debris in its wake. The human cost, well in the millions, staggers us. But from the midst of this dark conflict comes the story of the Christmas Truce of 1914. The Western Front, only a few months into the war, was a deplorable scene of devastation. Perhaps as if to give the combatants one day to breathe again, a truce was called from Christmas Eve through Christmas Day.

As darkness settled over the front like a blanket, the sound of exploding shells and the rat-tat-tat of gunfire faded. Faint carols, in French or English voices on one side and in German voices on the other, rose to fill the silence of the night.

By morning, soldiers, at first hesitantly, began filing out of the maze of trenches into the dreaded and parched soil of No Man’s Land. There was more singing. Gifts of rations and cigarettes were exchanged. Family photos were passed around. Soccer balls appeared. Up and down the Western Front, soldiers, who only hours before had been locked in deathly combat, now faced off in soccer games.

christmas-truce-1914 Soccer game during Christmas Truce 1914

For one brief but entirely remarkable day, there was peace on earth. Some have called the Christmas Truce of 1914 “the Miracle on the Western Front.”

Anxious to print some good news, The Times of London reported on the events of the Christmas Truce. Soldiers recorded the day in letters home and in diaries. Some of those lines made it to newspapers, while others remained unknown until later brought to light. Here’s one such line from the diary of a German infantryman:

The English brought a soccer ball from the trenches, and pretty soon a lively game ensued. How marvelously wonderful, yet how strange it was. The English officers felt the same way about it. Thus Christmas, the celebration of Love, managed to bring mortal enemies together as friends for a time.

“Friends for a time,” “the celebration of love,” “peace on earth”—this is the meaning of Christmas. But these celebrations, these truces, don’t last. After Christmas Day, the soccer balls and the soldiers went back into the trenches. The Christmas carols subsided and the war carried on. And even though World War I eventually ended, a few decades later, Europe’s countryside and cities became the field of battle once again, as did Africa and the Pacific, during World War II.

Events like the Christmas Truce are worth celebrating. But they lack something. They lack permanence. Such impermanent peace is what we often find in our quest for the real meaning of Christmas. If we are looking for permanent and ultimate goodwill, love, and peace, we must look beyond our gift-giving, get-togethers, and office parties. We must look to no other place than to a manger.

We must look to a baby born not with fanfare, pomp, and circumstance, but to poor parents in desperate times. Joseph and Mary, and the Baby Jesus for that matter, were real historical figures. But in a way, Joseph and Mary extend beyond themselves, beyond their particular place and time. They represent all of us. We are all poor and living in desperate times. Some of us are better than others at camouflaging it. Nevertheless, we are all poor and desperate, so we all need the promise bound up in that baby.

We are in need of a way out of our poverty of soul and the desperate state of our human condition. We find it in this child lying in a manger, who was and is Jesus Christ, the long-promised Messiah, Seed, Redeemer, and King.

The birth of Jesus so many centuries ago might have been a slightly-out-of-the-ordinary birth. Even in ancient times, stalls didn’t typically double as birthing rooms and mangers didn’t typically double as cribs for new-born babies. And that newborn baby was very much out of the ordinary. Of course, in some respects, He was perfectly ordinary. He was a human being, a baby. He got hungry. He got thirsty. He got tired. When He was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes—the ancient equivalent of Pampers.

An infant. Helpless, hungry, cold, and tired.

Yet, this child was the Son of God incarnate. He was Immanuel, which translated means “God with us.” According to the Apostle Paul’s account, this infant created all things. This infant created His own manger. And this infant, this King, brings peace on earth, ultimate and permanent peace.

May the peace othree-wise-menf Christ find permanent residence in your hearts.

Merry Christmas to all.

 

President Obama’s act of folly and betrayal of Israel

/in , , , , /by

President Obama yours was the unkindest abstention in the history of the U.S. actions as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Yesterday, in a deliberate act of retribution and in consort with four council members, two imperialist Islamic member states of the Organization of Islamic States, Malaysia and Senegal, New Zealand  and Venezuela, an ally of Iran, you abandoned the Jewish nation of Israel; this country’s only democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel.

This act of infamy was given a standing ovation by all 14 members of the Security Council. The Palestinian representative declared it a “day of victory.”

Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon demurred, calling it a “victory for terrorism.”

History will mark your action as an ignominious faithless act of betrayal of your oath of office and long-standing friendship of America towards the Jewish nation of Israel. A nation that shares the foundational values of our country.

Your abstention and the vote of UN Security Council approving Resolution 2334 dismembers Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem violating its existing right to negotiate just and secure borders.

Your act and that of the Security Council will not bring peace. Instead it will inflame Islamic terrorism against our ally Israel.

You have brought shame and dishonor on your office and reputation of this country and its people you were elected to faithfully serve.Your legacy following the end of your final term in office is forever tarnished by this act of folly.

The irony of your misguided conduct comes on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Hanukkah, meaning ‘consecration’, celebrating the victory two millenia ago by the Maccabees, the few against the many, blessed by Ha Shem. These warrior priests rose up with the cry of the High Priest Mattisyahu, “whoever is for for God, follow me.” Their mortal combat achieved a victory over the foreign tyrannyof Syrian-Greek despot, Antiochus, occupying ancient Judea. It was a victory in furtherance of the inalienable right of freedom to worship emblazoned in the First Amendment of our Constitution. An ancient victory that also affirmed the State of Israel’s right to the land of its Jewish fore-bearers and descendants.

Your action Friday , December 23, 2016 suborned that ancient legacy that this country was founded on to uphold 234 years ago with fight for Independence from another occupying tyranny.

It will now be left to a new Congress and your successor as President to redress your betrayal of our country and ally Israel.

Full text of UNSC resolution, approved Dec. 23, demanding Israel stop all settlement activity

The Times of Israel

Approved by 14-0, with US abstaining, text seeks action ‘to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-state solution’

Text of Egyptian-drafted resolution 2334 on settlements, approved by the UN Security Council, on December 23, 2016.

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980), 476 (1980), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), and 1850 (2008),

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,

Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines,

Recalling the obligation under the Quartet Roadmap, endorsed by its resolution 1515 (2003), for a freeze by Israel of all settlement activity, including “natural growth”, and the dismantlement of all settlement outposts erected since March 2001,

Recalling also the obligation under the Quartet roadmap for the Palestinian Authority Security Forces to maintain effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantling terrorist capabilities, including the confiscation of illegal weapons,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,

Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon addresses the Security Council on October 19, 2016. (UN Photo)

Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon addresses the Security Council on October 19, 2016. (UN Photo)

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps, consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground, which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;

3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the two-State solution;

5. Calls upon all States, bearing in mind paragraph 1 of this resolution, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967;

6. Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism;

7. Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations, to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric, with the aim, inter alia, of de-escalating the situation on the ground, rebuilding trust and confidence, demonstrating through policies and actions a genuine commitment to the two-State solution, and creating the conditions necessary for promoting peace;

8. Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process and within the time frame specified by the Quartet in its statement of 21 September 2010;

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

10. Confirms its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations and in the implementation of an agreement;

11. Reaffirms its determination to examine practical ways and means to secure the full implementation of its relevant resolutions;

12. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council every three months on the implementation of the provisions of the present resolution;

13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

‘The Crescent Must be Above the Cross’: Muslim Persecution of Christians 2016

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Democrat Folly: First Russian Hacking, then the Electoral College and now Impeachment

/in , , , , , /by

I have written, “When your opponent is committing suicide, don’t interfere.”

It appears that Democrats and their affiliates are determined to commit suicide as their rhetoric becomes more outrageous and more outlandish. 

After failing to change the 2016 election outcome by pressuring and even threatening members of the Electoral College a new tactic has emerged — impeachment.

The group Common Cause has launched a petition to impeach President-elect Donald J. Trump even before he has been sworn in to office. The basis for impeachment according to the Common Cause website is:

Americans deserve elected officials that are beholden to voters, not outside influences or their own personal financial interests. That’s why we’re worried about the massive conflicts of interest looming over a Trump presidency.

President-elect Trump controls more than 500 businesses, with assets valued at over $1.5 billion. There are simply too many opportunities for Trump to use the powers of his office to increase his personal wealth. The only solution is to sell these assets off and set up a blind trust.

The “conflict of interest” narrative has been picked up by Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren and Barbara Boxer.

The fakestream media is adding to the hysteria propelled by organizations such Common Cause and Occupy Democrats.

But who is Common Cause?

common-cause-logoAccording to ActivistFacts.com:

Common Cause is a Washington D.C.-based progressive organization that aims to “restore the core values of American democracy,” fighting to combat problems such as political corruption and the control of politics by big money. While Common Cause claims to be a non-partisan “watchdog,” in reality the organization does nothing more than act as a safeguard for the Democratic Party, defending its liberal policies and promoting its agenda.

[ … ]

Calling itself “nonpartisan,” one of the stated “Visions” on Common Cause’s website is to “curb the excessive influence of money on government decisions and elections.” While the organization outwardly claims it wants to reduce big money’s influence in politics, Common Cause continues to accept large contributions from partisan groups and uses that money to promote its partisan agenda. For example, Common Cause has received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute; Soros is the eccentric billionaire best known for backing left-wing advocacy groups.

Between 2000 and 2003, Open Society Institute contributed $600,000 to the Common Cause Education Fund, according to a Common Cause spokesperson in 2003. And the American Spectator stated that between 2001 and 2009, the total contribution from Soros’ Open Society to Common Cause was over $1.2 million. Other big money groups that have heavily funded Common Cause include the Joyce Foundation (which President Obama previously served as a Board Member), Arca Foundation, and the Carnegie Corp. of New York.

Read more…

Cheryl Chumley in an article titled “Donald Trump Detractors Already Raise Idea of Impeachment“:

Donald Trump may have won the necessary number of electors to win the official stamp of presidential approval, but his detractors aren’t backing down, and they’ve already come up with a new way to oust him from the White House: impeachment.

Yes indeed, impeachment – even as he’s not taken over the White House office, yet. Talk about jumping the gun.

From Fox News:

“The Hamilton Electors – the group of electors behind the push to deny Trump 270 votes – published a statement Monday indicating their fight was not over, urging supporters to ‘stay tuned.’

“‘Hamilton Electors hope this watershed moment will lay the groundwork for the emerging grassroots resistance to Trump’s agenda,’ the statement read.

“Texas Republican elector Chris Suprun, who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich on Monday, hinted that a push for Trump’s impeachment could be in the works.

“‘As a person who has always played fast and loose with the law, Trump will likely be impeached within the first year of his Presidency by responsible Republicans in Congress. For the rest of us Americans, his presence in the Oval Office represents a crisis for the Constitution, the economy and the country,’ he said in the statement.”

Here’s a thought the far left might want to consider: Could you at least wait until Trump takes office before mulling an impeachment?

Read more…

The media and Democrats will continue to attack President-elect Trump and then President Trump. They did during the Republican Presidential primary and he won his party’s nomination. They did during the Presidential general election and he won the White House. Jill Stein supported by Hillary Clinton asked for a recount and Trump won with more votes in Wisconsin. The Hamilton electors tried to flip the Electoral College vote and Hillary lost more votes (-5) than Trump (-2) confirming his victory.

Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity, the hallmark of the neo-Democrat Party.

EDITORS NOTE: To understand impeachment and the U.S. Constitution readers should visit The Constitutional Rights Foundation website.

Islam is the Problem

/in , , , , /by

“Islam is not the problem,” proclaims the Left. And if you say otherwise, you’re a “racist,” even though “Muslim” is not a race. Yet a fact remains: virtually all the world’s terrorists today claim Islamic motivations. So if Islam (belief) is not the problem, are we then left with a genetic explanation for this violence? Is there something inherent in the groups generally embracing Islam — Arabs, Persians, Punjabis, etc. — that would account for it? And, hey, I’m just asking; it’s the liberals who profess ideas suggesting this possibility.

Consider: When analyzing WWII and Germany, few claim the problem was Germans, but Nazism. When looking at 1917 Russia, we don’t say the problem was Russians, but Marxism. So fill in the blank: when evaluating the Muslim world and its violence, do we assume the problem is the people or _____?

Then there are other explanations for Muslim violence, all of which amount to Islamsplainin’. Poverty is one, but the Muslim world is not uniquely poor. There are many millions of poor Catholics in South America, Africa and elsewhere; and hundreds of millions of poor Hindus in India. Yet they aren’t committing terrorist acts. And Osama bin Laden was worth $125 million.

Another excuse is U.S. “meddling” in Muslim nations’ affairs; our taking Israel’s side in the Mideast is always Exhibit A. But there’s simply no good correlation between American interventionism and Muslim violence. Many nations and regions, such as Nigeria, Kashmir, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso and Mali, have problems with Islamic terrorism in the absence of a Yankee hand.

In fact, it isn’t unusual for Muslim nations to occupy 8 spots on a list of the world’s 10 most dangerous countries (examples found here and here). It also isn’t unusual for a non-Muslim nation in the top 10 to be a country such as North Korea or Central African Republic, the latter of which is 15 percent Muslim. This is no surprise, mind you, if we’re to believe a comprehensive German study of 45,000 youths that was reported in 2010. It found that while increasing religiosity among the Christian youths made them less violent, increasing religiosity among the Muslim youths actually made them more violent.

When evaluating Islam and seeking to understand such phenomena, a simple but important point is never made. Christians may use as a guide for behavior, “What would Jesus do?” (WWJD); likewise, Muslims view Mohammed as a role model, considering him “the Perfect Man.” But there is a difference.

I’ve heard leftists diminish Jesus, saying things such as He wasn’t divine, He never existed, we don’t know anything about Him, He had brothers and that He was married. What I’ve never heard them say — it might have been uttered but is rare enough to have eluded my ears — is that He wasn’t a good man. This is why instead of condemning Jesus, un-Christian movements will often seek to co-opt His story for their own purposes, as the Nazis did with their so-called “Positive Christianity.” That’s how unassailable Jesus is as a model for behavior.

What of Mohammed? He was a warlord who launched close to 30 military campaigns, many of which he led himself. He was a caravan raider (a bandit) and captured, traded in and owned slaves (note: will liberals suggest slave-owning Mohammed be diminished, as they have sought to erase our founders’ memory?). He ordered massacres, used torture and had dissidents assassinated. He was a polygamist and made it lawful for masters to have sexual relations with their female captives. Mohammad also wasn’t very fond of dogs, an attitude begetting their mistreatment in the Islamic world (warning: last three links are disturbing).

One could quip here, if the dog is man’s best friend and Mohammad hated dogs, was he really part of the family of man? But, in fairness and as I’ll acknowledge, as with Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan or Tamerlane, Mohammad was largely a man of his time and place. And I’d be happy to let him rest in peace and put his memory to bed — except for one thing: more than a billion people worldwide won’t. This brings us to that seldom heard point.

If someone said Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan or Tamerlane was “the Perfect Man” and used him as his role model, would you turn your back on that person?

This factor’s significance cannot be overstated. It’s well known that a child’s role models — the examples set for him — are more significant than mere teaching; virtues (and vices) are caught more than they’re taught. This is also true with the “children of a larger growth.” Thus, when analyzing Islam, people may be overemphasizing Mohammad’s teachings and underemphasizing his example. Tell me who your role models are, and I’ll tell you who you are.

Note also that modeling after Mohammad isn’t just like admiration for George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, which would wisely be tempered with the knowledge that they were, like everyone else, humans with flaws. For there simply is no room for criticism of a “Perfect Man,” no way to say “Alright, I’ll take the good he did and run with it and ignore the bad.” If a perfect man does something, it cannot be bad. So if much of the Islamic world appears mired in a medieval mentality, it could be because they’re modeling after a medieval man.

Yet what mainly plagues us is not Muslims’ enslavement to misbegotten ideas, but our own. For example, many Westerners cannot open their minds to the possibility that any religion could be a destructive force because they’re in the grip of a destructive force themselves: Religious Equivalence Doctrine, which holds as dogma that all faiths are morally equal.

Some may say a solution to this is, as they put it, to “realize Islam is not a religion.” I hope these people will read the following with an open mind, because I believe this is a misguided notion that itself is dangerous.

The idea is thought to have utility: declassify Islam as a religion and rob it of First Amendment protection. Yet how much good would this do? The amendment also guarantees freedom of speech and allows even secular beliefs such as Nazism and Marxism to be promoted. All the proposal could really do is remove Islam’s tax-free status.

The idea is destructive, too, because it appears predicated on the assumption that a “religion” would have to be good or prescriptive of peace. (In reality, many if not most religions in history, such as that of the human-sacrificing Aztecs, don’t meet that standard.) Yet this notion strays mighty close to Religious Equivalence Doctrine, which is corruptive because since different faiths espouse different values, not all faiths can be equal unless all values are. This is moral relativism, which has some serious implications.

For example, what differentiates different ideologies is also that they espouse different values. Yet if all values were equal, we couldn’t say that conservatism was any better than Nazism or Marxism. We rightly don’t believe this, of course, and we should apply the same standard to “religion.” To wit: religion isn’t bad, but there is bad religion.

In other words, if we refuse to make qualitative distinctions among religions — any group of religions — it implies that qualitative differences among values or value sets don’t exist. This would mean tolerance could be no better than intolerance, Christianity no better than Islam, and good will toward men no better than jihad.

Delving deeper, however, the truth is that, in the most important sense, the secular/religious distinction is a false one. Consider: If God exists, is it more significant that we label belief in Him “religious” or that it’s true? If Marxism is essentially a lie, is it more significant that we label it “secular” or that it’s untrue? The most important distinction, the only one that really matters, is the true and the untrue.

(Note: because we’ve lost sight of this, our courts now essentially say that Christianity cannot be in government schools but Marxism can. Ponder that.)

In the final analysis, people believe things. Some of those things are good and some of those things are bad. Some awfully bad things are believed by a large number of people today. If we want to survive, we’d better recognize what those things are and who promotes them — and act accordingly.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamists Attack Christmas, but Europeans Abolish It

‘The Crescent Must be Above the Cross’: Muslim Persecution of Christians 2016

CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IS ‘WORSE THAN MURDER AND BLOODSHED’: Another Islamic teaching behind the slaughter of Christians

German Police: ‘Helpless Feeling against Arab Gangs’ an ‘Unstoppable Migrant Crime Wave’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Angela Merkel has blood on her hands.

Geert Wilders, Dutch MP and Freedom Party leader who on Monday was named Dutch Politician of the Year, Tweeted the image above of German Chancellor Angela Merkel stating, “They hate and kill us. And nobody protects us. Our leaders betray us. We need a political revolution. And defend our people. #BerlinAttack.”

We learn from Daniel Greenfield that the suspect in the Berlin attack is a Tunisian migrant who should have been deported. In an article titled “Christmas Market Massacre Muslim Refugee killer couldn’t be deported” Greenfield reports:

24-year-old Anis Amri, the latest suspect in the Muslim massacre at the Christmas Market is a Tunisian Muslim refugee who should have been deported. The notion of a Tunisian refugee is already absurd. And we have a Muslim refugee terrorist who should have been deported carrying out a massacre.

Detectives in NRW had already investigated Anis A, on suspicion of preparing an act of terrorism, the state interior minister Ralf Jäger has confirmed.

The interior minister in NRW, Ralf Jäger, has confirmed that the suspect was supposed to be deported back to Tunisia. However the case was held up because Tunisian authorities at first refuted that he was a citizen of their country.

“The necessary papers arrived from Tunisia today,” SZ reports Jäger saying.

The SZ also reports that the suspect spent a day in detention but was freed again after authorities were not able to ascertain completely his actual identity.

Read more…

To make matters worse we learn about a letter from a German police union about the “unstoppable Muslim migrant crime wave.” Legal Insurrection reports:

Despite Merkel government’s all-out effort to prevent the breakdown of law and order in German cites ahead of the New Year’s Eve, wide cracks are appearing in country’s police preparedness.

What reads much like a dispatch from a lost battlefront, the union of police officers in the eastern German state of Thuringa has penned an open letter describing the dire state of affairs amid an unstoppable migrant crime wave. “[You] are abandoning us to a superior force,” says the desperate note addressed to Interior Minister of Thuringa.

Does this sound familiar? Are the police in the United States facing a superior force with their hands tied? Sanctuary cities, sanctuary college campuses and in Florida sanctuary counties are nests where Muslim gangs grow.

It’s not the radicalization for if you are a true believer and follower of Mohammed it is your duty to kill non-Muslims.

Calling Islam the religion of peace given all of those things people see from San Bernardino to Berlin, that is the ultimate political correctness.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Suspect In Berlin Terror Attack: German Police Hunt For Tunisian Islamist Man

Tunisian Man Who Had Been Under Terrorism Investigation Sought Over Berlin Truck Attack – WSJ

Florida Middle School Teacher promotes Satan — parents outraged

/in , , , , , /by

President-elect Donald J. Trump wishes those attending his thank you tour a Merry Christmas. The birthday of Jesus Christ is recognized throughout Western cultures and is the foundation of our Constitutional Republican form of government. In God We Trust appears on our currency and is on many public buildings.

Even in a secular France there is a movement to have a Nativity Scene in each city and town square.

However in Boca Raton, Florida there is one man, Preston Smith, who has erected a Satanic display in in the name of freedom of religion.

In a column “Man behind Satanic pentagram in Boca Raton is a middle school teacher Boca Middle School PTSA wants teacher removed” Charlie Keegan from WPTV Channel 5 reports:

The man who installed a satanic pentagram in Boca Raton is a public school teacher, the Palm Beach County superintendent of schools confirmed today.

The school district did not answer a previous attempt by NewsChannel 5 to confirm.

Parents said Preston Smith teaches language arts at Boca Raton Community Middle School. The president of the school’s parent teacher association said she doesn’t want Smith to continue teaching at the school, but added she can’t speak on behalf of all parents.

“A teacher we entrust our children with should not be putting a sign like this anywhere,” explained Kim Bremer.

Earlier this month, the city of Boca Raton gave Smith permission to install a Satanic display at Sanborn Square downtown. That is the same park where other religious organizations install a nativity scene and menorah during the holiday season.

Smith is a known activist for separating religion from government. He argued if the city allows one religious display on public property, it has to allow them all, even if they are offensive.

Read more…

Trump: ‘Islamic terrorists continuously slaughter Christians … as part of their global jihad’

/in , , , /by

Trump also tweeted: “Today there were terror attacks in Turkey, Switzerland and Germany – and it is only getting worse. The civilized world must change thinking!”

Indeed it must, and it looks as if, as he becomes President, it will begin to do so.

Imagine: the incoming President of the United States referred to “the global jihad.” Could reality actually be breaking through?

“President-Elect Donald Trump Reacts to Berlin Truck Attack,” by Brendan Morrow, Heavy, December 19, 2016:

President-Elect Donald Trump has issued a statement after at least nine people were killed and 50 injured in a truck attack in Berlin, Germany….

Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamic terrorists continuously slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.

At the same time that this statement was released, Trump tweeted about the situation in Berlin in addition to the assassination of Russia’s ambassador to Turkey. Trump also mentions a shooting that occurred at a mosque in Switzerland that left three people wounded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

10 Teens Arrested for planning Christmas Attack in Belgium

Berlin truck jihadi Pakistani Muslim who entered Germany as refugee

After murder of ambassador, Putin vows to obliterate the Islamic State

At present rate almost 14,000 Syrians would enter U.S. this fiscal year, 98% Muslim

/in , , , , , , /by

Recently I reported on the total number of refugees being rushed in to the U.S. right now presumably to beat an expected cut-off of resettlement from at least some countries (terror-producing) of the world after Donald Trump becomes President on January 20th.

And, although we reported new proposed sites have been placed on hold (see Bloomington, IN), there are still plenty of existing sites where refugees are being placed at the highest rate in recent memory.

Here is a map from Wrapsnet.org showing the numbers and placement of Syrians admitted to the US in the first ten weeks of this fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2016 to Dec. 10, 2016).

2,671 have been placed, and at this rate we would expect 13,889 by September 30th, 2017, if Donald Trump doesn’t do what he promised.

screenshot-92

This map is for the first 10 weeks of FY17. Florida is 132 (couldn’t fit whole map in shot) and Alaska and Hawaii are zero.

Here are the top ten states so far in FY2017 receiving Syrians.

Data from Wrapsnet puts the percentage of Muslims at 98% and the vast majority of those are Sunnis (remember it is the UN choosing our refugees!).

screenshot-93

Just a reminder, this is only data for resettled refugees and does not take in to account Syrians getting in to the U.S. through other means.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

10 Teens Arrested for planning Christmas Attack in Belgium

Save the Children act introduced in Congress would bring 25,000 Syrian children to US TEMPORARILY

Bloomington, Indiana: Plans for new resettlement site on hold; federal money drying up

Time for a Complete Halt on All Immigration

/in , , , , , /by

Immigration today, immigration tomorrow, immigration forever? In recent times there has been much controversy over President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign-trail suggestion that we temporarily halt immigration from Muslim nations (which has been modified). The Left claims such a notion is “discriminatory,” un-American and even, most ridiculously, unconstitutional. Yet there’s a simple way to avoid this debate altogether:

Institute a moratorium on all immigration.

This is a serious proposal — and a necessary one. Consider: with the U.S. having a replacement-level fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, immigration is the only reason our population is increasing. As to this, our numbers have swelled from 100 million people in 1915 to 200 million in 1968 to 320 million today. And it’s projected they will reach approximately 400 million just after 2050.

Obviously, such growth involves strain on natural resources, social services and infrastructure. Yet while the Left purports to care about the environment, it also pursues open-border policies with jihadist-like zeal. But when will enough population be enough? When it stands at 450 million? A half billion? A billion? The Left likes to push “family planning.” But what about national-family planning?

In addition, more than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force, and the real unemployment rate is far higher than the government’s fraudulent figure of approximately five percent. Moreover, recent years have seen companies replacing American high-tech workers with foreigners (often forcing our countrymen to train their replacements, as salt in the wound). What rational case can be made that the U.S. needs more people?

Actually, there is one rational, if nefarious, case: the desire for political power. Since the institution of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, 85 percent of our legal immigrants have come from the Third World. Upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat. In contrast, the Republicans derive approximately 90 percent of their votes from European-descent Americans. Do you see the rational case, or at least the rationale, now?

This post-1965 immigration model, along with oft-offered-amnesty to illegal migrants, has ushered in great demographic upheaval. Where our country was almost 90 percent non-Hispanic white in 1965, it’s now just 61.9 percent so. This is precisely what is being spoken of, by the way, when you hear the media and politicians talking about the “demographic changes” that are pulling the nation left.

Don’t be fooled by Donald Trump’s Nov. 8 victory, either. The President-elect campaigned as a nationalistic populist, not a conservative, and for a variety of reasons he possessed great cross-over appeal; in addition, Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. There is a reason California, where Ronald Reagan once reigned supreme, could not be won by him today. There’s a reason Virginia and North Carolina (of all places) are swing states; and why Illinois, which went GOP six elections in a row 1968 through 1988, is now a presidential-election Democrat bastion. And a big part of it is spelled i-m-m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n.

Power-mad, anti-Western politicians are well aware of this, mind you. Barack Obama said last year that immigration was making America “more and more of a hodgepodge of folks” and that he was “hopeful” this would drown out conservatism. Andrew Neather, ex-adviser to former British prime minister Tony Blair, was even more blunt in 2009 when he admitted that the massive Third World immigration into the U.K. was designed “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” And Swedish multiculturalist and social engineer Mona Sahlin, commenting on the planned Islamization of her land, said in 2001, “[T]he Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”

This is also why Obama has intensified the demographic warfare via illegal migration, most notably with an alleged amnesty plan that would legalize foreigners, “take over the host” (us) and “push citizens into the shadows.” Part of this scheme appears to involve “seeding” red states with Muslim migrants and other foreigners, who then will break the ice and create communities that will attract even more newcomers from their nations. Goodbye, Main Street, U.S.A. — hello, Hodgepodgeville.

By the way, what do you call people who, lusting after power, invite foreigners into their own lands to overwhelm their countrymen? Any thoughts?

Note that the 1965 immigration act wasn’t billed as a culture-ender and nation-render. In fact, writes the Center for Immigration Studies:

Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following [when pushing the ’65 legislation]:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Every claim above is the precise opposite of what came to pass. Our immigration did increase from a historical norm of approximately 250,000 a year to 1,000,000, we have been inundated with immigrants from one country and area (Mexico and Latin America) and from the most “populated and deprived nations,” and our ethnic (and racial) mix has changed radically.

Note, too, that in delivering his apologia, Ol’ Teddy tacitly admitted the above would be negative developments — he didn’t just dismiss such concerns as “racist.”

In fact, those concerns stemmed from a widely recognized truth: a nation demographically unstable is an unstable nation. For if such changes lead to balkanization, it will not long be a “nation,” properly defined as an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family. (The “Sioux Nation” was not a “country,” per se; it was thus named because all members were Sioux.) “E pluribus hodgepodge” is not a recipe for national success.

Of course, our immigration policy was once quite different. Not only were far fewer immigrants admitted, but for many decades prior to ’65, policies ensured that the U.S.’s demographic balance would be maintained. Such a model is now called “discriminatory.”But consider: with millions of ethnic Chinese flooding into Tibet, overwhelming the natives, anthropologists may scream, “This is cultural and demographic genocide!” When the same thing happens to Western nations?

Then it’s called “diversity.”

That’s not the only hypocrisy here. While reporting last year on white techie types displacing Hispanics in San Francisco’s Mission District, fake-news paper The New York Times disparagingly termed the phenomenon “bleaching out the Latino culture.” Yet fake-news station MSNBC has talked about the “browning of America” — favorably. Apparently, some demographic changes are more equal than others.

Of course, suspending legal immigration is currently still a minority view, in the grip as we are of immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. But with the Trump phenomenon having moved the dial on what’s politically possible and palatable, it’s time to start talking about it — and moving that dial a bit more.

Talk-show host Mark Levin has rhetorically asked, “Is the purpose of immigration law to change the demographics of the nation?” Today, in America, it is. But with patriotic movements already having struck a blow against the Establishment — in Europe with Brexit and in the U.S. with Trump — it’s time to do the same with immigration. Establishment immigration policy must go.

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

Florida Elector threatened, harassed and sued but will ‘proudly’ cast his vote for Trump

/in , , , , /by

In an email Christian Ziegler an elector from Florida writes:

christian-ziegler

Christian Ziegler, Florida Elector.

By now, you’ve probably heard about the efforts to harass the Members of the Electoral College. It has been covered by the newspapers, online outlets and on TV. (Read: “GOP Electoral College Voter Threatened: ‘I’m Going To Put A Bullet In The Back Of Your Mouth’).

As one of just 306 Republican Electors in the entire country and 29 in Florida, I can personally vouch for how relentless liberals have been begging me to not cast my electoral vote for Donald Trump.

Shortly after Donald Trump’s victory, I began getting bombarded with thousands of emails (view), hundreds of letters sent to my home (view), a countless number of targeted Facebook Ads (view), phone calls all day (including well after midnight – view) and I’ve even been named as a defendant in a lawsuit alongside of President-elect Donald Trump, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Florida Governor Rick Scott and other members of the Electoral College in Florida (view).

After all of their efforts, I’m excited to announce that liberals have failed in their attempt to have me to ignore the will of the voters of Florida and at 2pm on Monday December 19th, I will proudly cast my Electoral Vote for Donald J. Trump to serve as the next President of the United States of America!

I look forward to working with President Trump to Make America Great Again!

Christian Ziegler
State Committeeman

Note: I will be documenting my experience as an Elector on Monday. If you’d like to follow along, please “LIKE” my Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristianGOP/

In the New York Times column “Election Therapy From My Basket of Deplorables” Maureen Dowd wrote:

The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

Preaching – and pandering – with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.

Read more…

Democrats are desperate as they see a Republican President and U.S. Congress set to shatter their false idols. The electors are bound by law and by their Constitutional duty to cast their ballots for the winner President-elect Donald J. Trump.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Electoral College Voters Under Intense Pressure

GOP Electoral College Voter Threatened: ‘I’m Going To Put A Bullet In The Back Of Your Mouth’

Trump’s Envoy to Israel: ‘It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be Judenrein [void of Jews]’

/in , , , , /by

President-elect Donald J. Trump is making good on his promise to change the dynamics in the Middle East and be the most pro-Israel President since Harry Truman.

The Algemeiner column titled “Trump Announces Next US Envoy to Jewish State Will Be Attorney David Friedman, Who Says He Looks Forward to Working From ‘Israel’s Eternal Capital, Jerusalem’” Barney Breen-Portnoy writes:

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Thursday evening he will nominate attorney David Friedman to serve as the next American ambassador to Israel.

“The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I’m president,” Trump said in a statement published on his transition team’s website. “As the United States’ ambassador to Israel, David Friedman will maintain the special relationship between our two countries. He has been a long-time friend and trusted advisor to me. His strong relationships in Israel will form the foundation of his diplomatic mission and be a tremendous asset to our country as we strengthen the ties with our allies and strive for peace in the Middle East. Nothing is more critical than protecting the security of our citizens at home and abroad.”

[ … ]

In a pre-election interview with The Algemeiner in early November, Friedman said that a Trump administration would not expect Israel to uproot its citizens who now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as part of any future peace deal with the Palestinians.

“It is inconceivable there could be a mass evacuation on that magnitude, in the unlikely event that there was an otherwise comprehensive peace agreement,” Friedman said. “It makes no sense for Judea and Samaria to be ‘Judenrein [void of Jews],’ any more than it makes sense for Israel to be ‘Arabrein [void of Arabs].’ It’s not fair.”

[ … ]

Friedman went on: “The critical thing is to recognize that there is not going to be any progress on a Palestinian state until the Palestinians renounce violence and accept Israel as a Jewish state. Until that happens, there is really nothing to talk about in terms of a political process.”

What a Trump administration would not do, Friedman said, “is put its finger on the scale and try to force Israel into a particular outcome, but rather will support Israel in reaching its own conclusion about how to best achieve peace with its neighbors.”

Read more…

President-elect Trump is turning Middle Eastern policy and politics on its ear. It is clear that Trump says what he means and means what he says when it comes to the state of Israel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s envoy to Israel is ready to slay some sacred cows by Jeff Jacoby – The Boston Globe

Trump pick signals sharp shift on Israel

Comey calls Trump states the Russians Didn’t Influence the Election

/in , , , , , /by

Frank Gaffney in a NewsMax.com column titled “Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn’t Influence the Election” reports:

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the emails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.

“And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,” the sources quoted Comey as saying.

Read more…

Yet another fake news story to help Democrats influence the election.

RELATED ARTICLE: DNC docs were leaked, not hacked, intelligence veterans say