VIDEO: President Donald Trump Tours the Progress on the Border Wall in San Diego, CA

In San Diego, California, President Donald J. Trump got an up-close look yesterday at the great progress being made on new and replacement border wall.

“We’re building it at a breakneck speed,” the President said after receiving an update from Border Patrol officials. All told, the wall will “be over 400 miles. And we think we can get it close to 500 miles by the end of next year,” he added.

President Trump’s goal has always been to stop illegal immigration and protect the American people. Now, with border wall construction underway, the results are undeniable: Illegal border crossings plummeted 30 percent between July and August.

“Nobody is coming in unless they’re coming in legally. They’re coming in through a process,” the President said.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Iran sanctions, Cost of illegals, Bernie’s Free tuition, Medical Care cost…

GUESTS:

Lt Col (R) Saris Sangari is a retired US Army Colonel who saw extensive combat in the Middle East as a Special Operations Forces soldier and who, after retirement, continues to advise the fledgling Assyrian Christian Army in Iraq known as Dwekh Nawsha with his military expertise.

TopicIran: Hardliners vs Moderates on shooting down the drone!

Frank Vernuccio, editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, providing objective coverage of key issues facing the United States today. Frank is the co-host of the Vernuccio/Novak Report, nationally both on broadcast radio and the web at amfm247.com. FRANK also co-hosts of the “The American Political Zone,” Broadcast on cable in eastern Connecticut.

TopicIllegal Alien Impact on 2020 Election!

Michael Busler, Ph.D. public policy analyst and a Professor of Finance at Stockton University where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Finance and Economics. He has written Op-ed columns in major newspapers for more than 35 years.

TopicSanders, liberals, out to cancel student debt!

Stephen Moore writer and economic policy analyst. He founded and served as president of the Club for Growth and is a former member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. In 2014 Steve joined The Heritage Foundation serving as its its chief economist. and Distinguished Visiting Fellow. Steve now serves as senior economic analyst with CNN, and author of “Fueling Freedom: Exposing the Mad War on Energy” and former senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign. Moore’s work continues to appear regularly in the Wall Street Journal, Townhall, The Washington Times, and various publications including The Weekly Standard, Washington Times and National Review.

TopicBlurring the Expense of Medical Care!!

VIDEO: Trump at New Mexico rally, ‘A vote for any Democrat is a vote to destroy the U.S.’

The Democrats have had a very bad year. They are on the wrong side of every issue that the American people care about. Democrats are wrong on immigration, wrong on taxing the working class, wrong on the job killing $15 to $30 minimum wage and wrong on taking away the firearms of law abiding citizens.

Just last week the the Democrats in the U.S. House passed a law to stop drilling for oil in Alaska and off of the coasts of Florida. Then came the attack on the oil fields of Saudi Arabia by the Iranians. Talk about bad timing.

Remember it was the Democrats under Obama who gave us the Iran Nuclear Deal.

So, President Trump is correct when he said, “A vote for any Democrat is a vote to destroy the U.S.”

Watch President Trump’s full remarks at the Keep America Great rally in New Mexico.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured video is courtesy of Fox News Channel. © All rights reserved.

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Is Petitioned to Rehear the Federal Refugee Resettlement Opinion

ANN ARBOR, MI— The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) and Bursch Law PLLC have filed a petition for rehearing by the entire Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals bench of a two-judge panel opinion of that court dismissing Tennessee’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program for lack of standing.​

The basis for the rehearing petition, which was filed last Friday, Sept. 6, is that the two-judge opinion is “painfully at odds” with Supreme Court precedent.The Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, agreed to represent the State of Tennessee, its General Assembly and two state legislators at no charge, after the state’s attorney general refused to bring the requested lawsuit. John Bursch of Caledonia, Michigan, represented the plaintiffs on behalf of TMLC at the oral arguments in the Sixth Circuit.

TMLC filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in March 2017, alleging that the Refugee Act of 1980, currently imposed on it by the federal government, amounts to an unconstitutional power grab – commandeering millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.

A federal district court granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case. On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, a two-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.

Consequently, the petition for rehearing asks the Sixth Circuit’s full bench to consider the question: Does the Tennessee General Assembly have standing to challenge a regulatory regimen that allows the federal government to siphon dollars from the state treasury “at times and in amounts of the federal government’s choosing,” effectively diluting the legislature’s exclusive power of appropriation?

The controversy over refugee resettlement in Tennessee dates back to 2008. That’s when the state pulled out of the federal refugee program in accordance with its agreement with the federal government. But the flow of refugees continued, as the federal government simply transferred management of the program to a private agency, Catholic Charities of Tennessee, an arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, “This case has enormous jurisprudential consequences, not only on the issue of the federal refugee resettlement program, but on the ability of Congress to force states to pay for future bizarre, fantastical, unwanted programs as proposed by current Democrat candidates without any recourse to the courts.”

Crucial to the argument for rehearing is the 2015 case of Arizona v. Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that state legislatures have standing to bring lawsuits when their legislative powers are threatened.

The petition for rehearing states, “In sum, the federal government is siphoning state funds to pay for a program from which Tennessee has withdrawn, and it can do so on any date and for any amount it wants. As the federal government admitted in its brief, Tennessee’s decision to end participation in the Refugee Resettlement Program had ‘no implications whatsoever’ on Tennessee’s obligation to fund the program. The federal government mandates Plaintiffs provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.”

Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.

The rehearing petition warned, “As the federal bureaucracy continues to grow, federal officials will increasingly look to state budgets as the solution to federal funding deficits. When federal bureaucrats do so in violation of the Constitution, e.g. by coercing states to continue funding under pain of losing 20% of the state budget, state legislators must have the ability to bring suit.”

Besides Medicaid funding, the federal government also commandeers state funds for other welfare programs and for public education of the refugees.

TMLC’s complaint alleges that “the federal government has violated the Unites States Constitution’s Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment” by enacting legislation and rules which purport to give the federal government authority to commandeer state funds to finance the refugee resettlement program.

The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.

In accordance with SJR 467, TMLC is providing its legal services, including a potential appeal to the Supreme Court, at no cost to taxpayers.

Since January 2002 the federal government has placed more than 19,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns.

These refugees often arrive in poor health, with no job or English skills, and with children who are placed in public schools and in need of expensive translators and tutors. And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.

As a result, the federal program thwarts the state legislature’s ability to pass a balanced budget as required by the Tennessee Constitution.

In the middle of a fiscal year the federal government, for any reason, can decide to settle additional refugees into Tennessee causing the state’s spending to exceed its revenue.

In short, this purely federal program diverts state tax dollars away from other state programs that benefit deserving Tennesseans.

Clearly, the General Assembly has been deprived of its right “to spend state funds in the manner the people of Tennessee may – through their elected legislators – deem appropriate,” the petition states.

You can read the full petition for rehearing here.

You can read the original complaint, as filed by TMLC in March 2017, here.

My Draw Mohammad Manifesto

This is for artists who’ve remained silent about the issue of drawing Mohammad, even after cartoonists were slaughtered over it, and who are afraid to draw Mohammad, though they’d never admit it, and who have never been challenged over it. The reason why the Charlie Hebdo massacre happened is because ten years earlier, when Danish cartoonists were threatened with murder for drawing Mohammad, the civilized world, the world that claims to defend Free Speech, sold out Free Speech, submitted to the savages, and even justified the threats. And the enemy saw that abject fear across the West, and they knew that they could get away with murder. And they did, because no one speaks of Charlie Hebdo anymore, and hardly anyone draws Mohammad anymore.

But still, after those at Charlie Hebdo were murdered over Mohammad cartoons on January 7, 2015, you would have thought that such an attack would have rallied the West to respond in a strong way, and for publishers across the world to publish the cartoons, in defiance of such an attack on civilization. Instead, fear ruled the day and it created a vacuum that sleazy politicians filled. They made the attack all about themselves, as they converged in France, leading crowds to nowhere, and saying nothing worthwhile or true about what had happened. And recalling the videos and the pictures at the time, these sleazy politicians probably made sure that the Mohammad cartoons that the cartoonists were murdered over were nowhere in sight in the crowds behind them. But there were plenty of trendy pens being held in the air, and t-shirts and signs with “Je Suis Charlie”, worn and held by those who would never draw Mohammad. If you don’t draw Mohammad, you don’t get to say “Je Suis Charlie”. The event dishonored those at Charlie Hebdo, and ignored the entire point of it all, that we must defy these evil savages by doing precisely what they threaten us not to do.

Eventually, it took the typically callous actions of Muslims to finally provoke a strong response. Eleven days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Muslims walked over their dead bodies to hold an event at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, to defend Mohammad from criticism and cartoons called “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect”. And Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer saw that and decided to stand with Free Speech by organizing a Mohammad cartoon contest where the winner would be announced at the same location, where there would also be an exhibition of Mohammad art, and Geert Wilders would be the keynote speaker. I ended up winning the contest, and the jihadists who came to mass-murder us ended up getting their heads blown off. And then there was a second attack on us, but this time it was by the media, on both the left and the right, who were determined to paint us- the targets of a terrorist attack -as worse than the jihadists who came to murder us.

Free Speech isn’t about what we can talk about, it’s not about speech that’s considered “acceptable” in society at any particular time, it’s about saying what “can’t” be said, yet still saying it, come what may. And that freedom to say the unsayable is under relentless attack by those who view that freedom as a threat to them. Weak ideas, weak ideologies, can’t withstand scrutiny. And people having the freedom to say whatever they want could lead them to call out those ideas and ideologies, to expose them as the complete opposite of what they claim to be, and that’s why Muslims and leftists are the greatest enemies of Free Speech, because they have the most to lose if their ideas are allowed to be scrutinized.

If you don’t support cartoonists drawing Mohammad, then you don’t support Free Speech. If you reserve all of your condemnation for those who draw Mohammad, and are silent about those who threaten them over it, then you’re a coward.

Once human beings are murdered over cartoons, those who would invoke “hurt feelings” and “decorum” should be completely dismissed. This is an issue of free expression, an issue of defying an enemy in wartime who wants to kill you if you exercise that freedom. Yet I’m still told that I shouldn’t draw Mohammad because it “hurts” the feelings of Muslims, because it’s not “nice”, because it pisses off Muslims. The only reason people are worried about pissed off Muslims is because Muslims act violently when they’re pissed off. But my support for Free Speech doesn’t end when Muslim violence begins, my support only grows stronger.

Still, to this day, I’m accused of “provoking” Muslims, when it’s their threats over cartoons that “provokes” me to draw Mohammad. I know that most cartoonists don’t draw Mohammad because of death threats, but death threats should have been the spark to get most of us to draw Mohammad. It did with me. I was raised Muslim, and I never even considered drawing Mohammad, and I didn’t even know that there was a prohibition against it. But when Muslims warn us that we can’t draw Mohammad because Islam forbids it, we have a choice, to either draw Mohammad or become de facto Muslims and sell out Free Speech.

We’re always hearing that “it’s time” for something to be said or done, for no other reason that that “it’s 2019”, and it’s usually something as stupid as “It’s time for a black, female, transgender James Bond.” Well, it’s time that cartoonists who claim to support free speech draw Mohammad. Otherwise, you’re full of it.

It’s time that those who claim to support Free Speech are put to the test. Behaving as an enemy wants you to behave is capitulation, but I’m told by some cartoonists who haven’t drawn Mohammad that it’s not their “thing”, that it doesn’t “interest” them. When cartoonists are murdered for drawing something that an enemy at war with us doesn’t want us to draw, the only self-respecting thing one can do is to draw precisely what the bastards don’t want you to draw. Can you imagine the World War Two generation being warned by Hitler and his Nazis that if they drew Hitler, they would be murdered, and of that generation falling silent and not drawing Hitler? That warning would have resulted in endless Hitler cartoons. I don’t want to hear, “Well, that was a different time”, because it’s just an excuse to capitulate, as if we all have to get on board with this Age of Capitulation, just because so many do it. Defying evil is a timeless thing, and while I understand that not everyone is built for it, if none do so, then evil wins. And right now, evil is winning. That we cannot defeat the Islamic enemy, almost 18 years after 9/11, is a defeat unto itself.

Where is the traditional American defiance in all of this? As Ayn Rand put it, “Defiance, not obedience, is the American’s answer to overbearing authority.” And look at the part of the world that doesn’t draw Mohammad to know what happens when evil wins, to see what happens to an entire part of the world where the bad guy won. A world so defeated that the founder of the ideology that defeated them cannot be drawn, cannot be criticized, and so cannot be overthrown from their mind. The West resembles the Islamic world more than the Islamic world resembles the West, post-9/11. That’s Islamization at work. The incremental, corrosive, pushing of Islam down our throats as something good and valuable to us, when it’s antithetical to everything we claim to upheld.

When it comes to Mohammad cartoons and cartoonists, I’m particularly disappointed with Frank Miller, who’s referred to as a “controversial” cartoonist, but who hasn’t drawn Mohammad in the 14 years since cartoonists were first threatened with murder for drawing Mohammad, at least in a way that the news media couldn’t ignore. Miller used to talk a good game about Free Speech decades ago, but he’s pretty much clammed up about Free Speech since the Mohammad cartoon “crisis” hit, which tells me that his “support” for Free Speech was all talk. If you’re not going to support Free Speech when it most matters, then I don’t want to hear you yap about it when it least matters.

As for those who tell me that it’s not their “duty” to put their lives on the line by drawing Mohammad: Drawing Mohammad is not a death sentence, but Not drawing Mohammad, and not publishing Mohammad cartoons could be a death sentence for our culture. Speaking for myself, I’ve drawn Mohammad over 300 times, I survived a jihadist attack, I’ve gotten thousands of death threats from Muslims, and I’m alive. Yes, the bastards want me dead, and my life has become difficult at times, but Free Speech is alive, even if I’m the last one drawing Mohammad. If I’m going to die over this, then I’m going to die as I want to live, not as an enemy wants me to “live”.

Islamic dictatorships forbid Mohammad cartoons, and the West is increasingly forbidding Mohammad cartoons. That this needs to be stated tells us how far we’ve fallen, but we need to be completely different from Islamic dictatorships, and in this issue, we’re far too alike. And that’s why I have two books worth of my Mohammad cartoons, so far, to try to keep that world at bay, even if only by myself.

Some things are worse than death, such as a world without Free Speech. We know what that kind of world looks like, what kind of hellhole it is, so we should operate in a way that makes our world completely different from that world. And if this challenge of mine only makes people openly admit their fear of drawing Mohammad, then that’s a start.

The Islamic enemy has many on its side who want to kill Free Speech, and we have very few on our side who want to defend it. This is unacceptable, and it’s unbecoming of a people who have the freedom to speak, but who choose not to, out of fear. The Danish Mohammad cartoon “crisis”, and the Charlie Hebdo massacre were challenges to our core values, and we failed to meet those challenges directly and honestly. We’ve become a culture that is regularly paying tribute to an ideology that sanctions the war against us. It’s infuriating, at times, to see this widespread cowardice, and to see a weak enemy have such power over so many of us.

It’s tough to hear cartoonists talk about their “brave” and “controversial” work – such as portraying Jesus as a warlord, (while they would Never portray Mohammad as the warlord he actually was). It’s equally tough to see an organization- one that I used to be a card-carrying member of -claim that it’s all for Free Speech, but then run at the first sign of trouble. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund published a pamphlet about “Cartoonists Under Fire”, which was written after the Garland attack, and which made No mention of me, a cartoonist who was literally under fire in Texas. I called them out publicly, on my blog, on social media, and on Red Eye, and some CBLDF members scrambled to try to put a good face on it, but they showed that their “support” for Free Speech was very conditional and very leftist. And they’ll never get another penny from me.

It’s insane that cartoonists are threatened with death for drawing Mohammad cartoons, and it’s insane that we’re blamed for inciting terrorism, and I draw Mohammad, repeatedly, to push back against such insanity. This is war, on the battlefield, and in the culture, and I’m challenging cartoonists to prove their support for Free Speech by drawing Mohammad. Right now, and it’s hard to believe, but I’m the only cartoonist who is regularly drawing Mohammad today. There should be so many people drawing Mohammad that it confounds the enemy. If many of us drew Mohammad after the Mohammad cartoon “crisis”, and if many publishers published Mohammad cartoons, those at Charlie Hebdo might still be alive, because they wouldn’t have been so isolated and so easy to kill, as the few who drew Mohammad. A few years before the massacre, Charlie Hebdo had their offices firebombed, and Hebdo’s publisher, Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier, stated at the time, “I would rather die standing than live on my knees.”We Americans all have a good time mocking the French, but they did what many of us don’t dare do, so we should keep that in mind before pretending that we’re better than them on the issue of Free Speech. Where is the American equivalent of Charlie Hebdo?

Marvel and DC Comics, and other mainstream comic book publishers, have published benefit books for all kinds of causes over the decades, and I think “it’s time” for Free Speech to get that same kind of treatment.

As for those cartoonists who might be waiting to draw Mohammad, waiting until the coast is clear: the coast isclear. It was cleared by those who defend freedom. Some, with their very lives. If we keep acting as if Free Speech is over, it will be.

The question isn’t “Why would you draw Mohammad if you know it makes Muslims crazy?”, the question is, “How do you respond when Muslims threaten to murder over Mohammad cartoons?” And the answer is, by drawing Mohammad cartoons. Free Speech is under attack by the left, by Muslims, and by the worst on the right, so when Free Speech is under attack, you defend it, you exercise it, you push back and you defy its enemies. It’s a simple thing, but we’re living in such a mad time in history that savages have made cartoons a part of the battleground in this never-ending post-9/11 war. Cartoons. And that’s not to diminish the value of cartoons, which I love and which I make my living on, it’s to illustrate how fragile, how hypersensitive this enemy is, and how we should use that as part of the defense of the West.

One of the most self-loathing things I hear from non-Muslims about Mohammad cartoons is that it’s “blasphemous” to Muslims, as if we should place something as unimportant to us as “blaspheming” Islam above something as important to us as our freedom of expression. As if Islamic blasphemy should be any concern of those of us who don’t observe Islam. As if Islam’s prohibitions should be our prohibitions. This is one of the things that distinguishes Islam from other religions, in that it is the least live and let live religion in history. And regardless what people tell themselves about the nature of Islam, the fact that its founder was a warlord tells us all we need to know about Islam’s nature. “But there’s a verse in the Koran which tells people to live and let live!” I’m told. And then I have to inform them of Islam’s doctrine of abrogation, which is that if later verses in the Koran contradict earlier ones, then Muslims are to go with the later ones. So the later, violent passages calling for war killed whatever “peaceful” passages there were. One of the great conceits of Islam is that not only are Muslims to follow Mohammad as ‘the perfect model’, but that we all are. That’s a hostile religion that has overstepped itself, and we need to remind Muslims that Islam has no sway over us. And in this post-9/11 world, one of the most dramatic ways to show that is to draw Mohammad.

Some people have actually told me that they’re afraid to even like my social media posts, which is a terrible state for a free people to be in. And even if none of you answer the challenge and draw Mohammad, well, that’ll make a point as well. You either support Free Speech or you don’t. You cannot remain neutral when your fellow cartoonists are threatened with murder and then murdered over cartoons, no matter what you tell yourself. No matter what others tell you. And no matter if no one ever challenges you about it. You know you’ve capitulated. I’m just letting you know that I know that you have.

If you believe that you “can’t” draw Mohammad, then you’ve sold out Free Speech to its savage enemies.

You support Free Speech or you don’t.

Support Free Speech.

Draw Mohammad.

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

California: America’s First Third World State by Black Pigeon Speaks [Video]

Posted by Eeyore video by Black Pigeon Speaks

California-based ‘Church’ Ministry Indicted by Feds in Forced Labor Case

Here is the news about the disgusting abuse in the name of God.

From the AP story at the Hartford Current:

Leaders of California ministry charged with forced labor

(My first question when I saw the news was, what are the names of the leaders? Other than the leader of the scam, the others aren’t named in most of the US news stories.  But, as is so often the case the UK Daily Mail has them with pictures!—ed)

A dozen leaders of a California-based ministry were arrested Tuesday on charges that they used homeless people as forced labor, holding them in locked group homes and forcing them to panhandle up to nine hours a day, six days a week, U.S. prosecutors said.

The former pastor of Imperial Valley Ministries, Victor Gonzalez, and the others were arrested in San Diego, El Centro near the Southern California border with Mexico and Brownsville, Texas. They face charges of conspiracy, forced labor, document servitude and benefits fraud.

The El Centro-based ministry has about 30 affiliate church throughout the United States and Mexico and runs five group homes in Southern California, authorities said.

Dozens of victims, many of them homeless and some as young as 17, were lured to the group homes by the promise of food and shelter until they were able to return home.

Instead, the ministry that billed itself as rehabilitating drug addicts kept them inside deadbolted group homes, took their personal belongings and identification documents and refused to return them, stole their food stamp and welfare benefits and in some cases threatened to take away their children if they left, according to a grand jury indictment filed Aug. 23 and unsealed Tuesday.

“The indictment alleges an appalling abuse of power by church officials who preyed on vulnerable homeless people with promises of a warm bed and meals,” U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer said at a news conference. “These victims were held captive, stripped of their humble financial means, their identification, their freedom and their dignity.”

“Windows were nailed shut at some group home locations, leading a desperate 17-year-old victim to break a window, escape, and run to a neighboring property to call police,” said a statement from the U.S. attorney’s office.

More here.  And, see the indictment here.

Who are they?

Now check out the UK Daily Mail story, here, where we learn the names of the ‘new Americans’ ripping off extremely vulnerable homeless people.

Former IVM Pastor Victor Gonzalez, 40, of Brownsville, Texas was among those arrested in the probe along with Jose Demara Flores, aka Joe Flores, 52, Mercedes ‘Mercy Diaz’, 37, and Susan Christine Leyva, 39.

El Centro, California church leaders Arnoldo Bugarin, 47, Jose Gaytan, 47, Sonia Murillo, 51, Sergio Partida, 32, Ana Karen Robles-Ortiz, aka Karen Partida, 29, and Azucena Torres, aka Susana Bugarin, 43, were also booked.

San Diego leaders Jose ‘Chito’ Morales, 47, was arrested in San Diego.

So much for the entrepreneurial spirit of ‘new Americans.’

The Indictment is here.  If anyone finds some juicy bits that weren’t mentioned by the media, let me know.  For example, did money leave the country?

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Dr. Mordechai Kedar – Speaking tour to the U.S. and Canada: April–May 2020

These days the Middle East is undergoing a profound and historic transformation. Many Middle East scholars are attempting to understand the developments in the Arab world and in the Arab and Muslim culture and religion. Additionally, Iran’s nuclear aspirations are the cause of a deep concern to many all over the world.

In the U.S. things are changing: the Jew-hatred genie comes out of the bottle and attacks against Jews become more and more frequent.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the Director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), a research associate of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and a lecturer in the Department of Arabic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, is one of Israel’s leading figures in understanding the Arab world. Until recently he was the Middle East analyst of the daily newspaper “Makor Rishon” as well as other publications. Dr. Kedar is a frequent guest in the Israeli, Arab and international media. In June of 2019, Dr. Kedar gave a very insightful presentation on Capitol Hill on “What Are the Obstacles to Finding Peace in the Middle East, and What Are the True Roots Behind the Hatred Between the Saudis and Iranians?”

Dr. Kedar will be on a speaking tour, visiting North America, between Pessah and Shavuot 5780, April 16 to May 26, 2020. He is available to be booked for lectures and various presentations. He can be a scholar-in-residence for a weekend or give presentations and lectures during the weekdays.

His lectures are about the Middle East, Israel’s existence within the Middle Eastern environment, the struggle over Jerusalem, Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world and Iran, combatting the BDS etc. Please see the list of topics below.

A number of Dr. Kedar’s lectures in English are on YouTube.

Last June, Kedar gave a 2-hour interview to JBS’ Rabbi Mark Golub:

Part 1:

Part 2:

You might have watched Dr. Kedar’s famous interview on al-Jazeera about the right of Jews to build in Jerusalem:

In May 2012 Dr. Kedar spoke in a conference about the problems of the Israeli public diplomacy

Dr. Kedar’s weekly analysis about the Middle East on Israel National News.

Dr. Kedar would like to offer his lectures (see list below) to Synagogues, Churches, Mosques, universities, colleges, schools, community centers, organizations etc. He does not need a 5 star hotel and prefers to stay overnight with a family. Dr. Kedar travels in economy class and his fee is reasonable.

Dr. Kedar is planning to be in North America between April 16 and May 26, 2020.

If you would like to view a sample lecture or if you have any ideas or suggestions please feel free to contact Dr. Kedar at the e-mail: kedar.tour@gmail.com

Dr. Mordechai Kedar
Director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation);
Research Associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies;
Lecturer in the Department of Arabic,
Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Phone in Israel: +972-544-778-908
US Mobile (while in North America): 917-868-3551
Kedar.tour@gmail.com

Possible Topics:

Jewish Issues:

1. Jew-Hatred / Antisemitism: roots, causes and ways to deal with it
2. Israel and the Diaspora: the widening gap
3. Against All Odds – A miracle named Israel
4. The European Jewry – where to?
5. The situation of European and American Jewry – similarities and differences
6. The mass migration to Europe and the Jewish communities

Israeli Issues:

1. The Results of the 2019 General Elections
2. The Controversy in Israel over Judea, Samaria and Gaza
3. Right, Center and Left in Israel

Israel and its neighbors:

1.Trump, Putin and the Middle East – What Can We Expect?
2. Israel at 72: Achievements and Challenges
3. Israel in a Changing Middle East – Challenges and Opportunities
4. Israel and the Palestinian Issue – Possible Solutions
5. The Middle East – where to?
6. Peace in the Middle East – What does it Need?
7. Iran – Where to?

Understanding Arab and Muslim Culture:

1. “The Arab Spring” – Why did it fail?
2.Tribalism in the Middle East and its influence on politics and state building.
3. Turkey – What went wrong?
4. What is the struggle over Jerusalem all about?
5. Why do many Muslims hate the West?
6. Understanding the Iranians – What motivates the Ayatollahs?
7. Hezbollah – Ideology, politics and modus operandi.
8. Hamas – Ideology, politics and modus operandi.
9. Islam – A culture in crisis.
10. Islam in Democratic State – The Islamic Movements in Israel.
11. Democracy in the Middle East – Opportunity or danger?
12. Islamic Radicalism – Causes, ideology and ways to face it.
13. Sunnis and Shi’is – Why do they hate each other so?
14. Islamic Women between Tradition and Modernity.
15. Palestinian Political Illustrations – Cartoons and messages.
16. The Right of Return in the Palestinian National Ethos.
17. Hizballah, Hamas, and Israel – Living with the enemy.
18. Clash of Values: Gender and Family Issues – Sources of tension between Islam and the West.
19. Arab Intellectuals – Where are they?
20. Arab Mass Media – their role in ME societies.
21. The Other Voice in the Arab World – My personal experience.

Lecture Subjects Concerning Military Intelligence:

1. Flawed intelligence assessments and mistaken policies resulting from cultural differences.
2. What motivates Arab states, societies and armies?
3. How to understand the Arab state media?
4. Major mistakes made by the Western coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lectures on Israeli domestic issues can also be considered.

PODCAST: Climate Crisis? Green New Dealers vs.energy facts and ICE Treats Illegals to soccer.

Sharron Angle co-hosts with Dr. Nasir Shaikh discussing CNN’s ‘Climate Crisis Town Hall’ with Democratic Candidates. Green New Dealers need to face some hard energy facts. ICE Detention Facility treats illegals to soccer field with guests Marlo Lewis, Paul Driessen, and Chris Chmielenski.

GUESTS:

Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.   Marlo has been published in The Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, TechCentralStation, National Review, AMONG OTHERS.  He has appeared on various television and radio programs, and his ideas have been featured in radio commentary by Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.  Prior to joining CEI, he served as Director of External Relations at the Reason Foundation. During the 106th Congress, Marlo served as Staff Director of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs. TOPIC…Climate Crisis Town Hall’ with Democratic Candidates!

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.  TOPIC…Green New Dealers need to face some hard energy facts!

Chris Chmielenski serves as the Deputy Director of NumbersUSA, the nation’s largest grassroots immigration-reduction organization with more than eight million participants in all 435 congressional districts.  NumbersUSA provides a civil forum for Americans of all political and ethnic backgrounds to focus on a single issue, the numerical level of U.S. immigration. Chris joined NumbersUSA in October of 2008 and now serves as the Deputy Director.  He previously worked as an educator and journalist and has a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Broadcast Journalism from Syracuse University. TOPIC… ICE Detention Facility Treats Illegals to soccer field!

18 Years After 9/11 the Threat of Terror Attacks Continues

Looking back to 1998, the dots were connected — and then ignored.

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred nearly 18 years ago yet the impact still reverberates around the world.

It is disconcerting that Americans who are now coming of age to vote were born after the attacks of 9/11 and what they know or don’t know about those attacks depends on what they have been taught by teachers who are not being “Politically Correct” but actually provide lessons that conform to Orwellian Newspeak as does the mainstream media.

On August 30, 2019 The Hill reported, Trial for men accused of plotting 9/11 attacks set for early 2021.  That report begins with this excerpt:

The trial for men charged as plotters of the 9/11 attacks was set Friday for Jan. 11, 2021, The New York Times reported.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men are set to be charged for their alleged role planning the 2001 terror attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Mohammed has been accused of being the mastermind behind the strike.

While the media typically attributes the death of approximately 3,000 innocent victims to the attacks, in reality the actual death count is much higher and victims of those attacks continue to suffer and die because of their exposure to the toxins that were released as a result of the attacks.

As we approach the 18th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 terrorism-related stories are still making news, underscoring the irrefutable fact that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over our heads, not unlike the Sword of Damocles.  However, the lunatic Left seeks to leave America defenseless.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks there was no shortage of politicians who stood behind podiums festooned with forests of microphones in front a television cameras and pounded those podiums, demanding the answer to the question, “Why didn’t anyone connect the dots so that the attacks could have been prevented?”

In reality, however, the “dots” had been connected on numerous occasions fears before September 11, 2001 because there had been a number of terror attacks committed by aliens who had gamed the immigration system to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities around the United States so that they could go about their deadly preparations.

In 1993 the United States suffered two deadly terror attacks conducted entirely by radical Islamist aliens who had managed to enter the United States thus enabling them to carry out those deadly attacks.

In January 1993 a Pakistani by the name of Mir Aimal Kansi stood outside CIA Headquarters with an AK-47 and opened fire on the vehicles of CIA officials reporting for work on that cold January morning in Virginia.  When the smoke dissipated, two CIA officer lay dead and three other were seriously wounded.  Kansi fled the United States and was ultimately brought back to stand trial.  He was found guilty and executed for his crimes.  He had applied for political asylum.

Just one month later, on February 26, 1993 a bomb-laden truck was parked in the garage under the World Trade Center complex and detonated. The blast nearly brought one of the 110 story towers down sideways. As a result of the explosion, 6 innocent people were killed, over one thousand people were injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damages were inflicted on that iconic complex of buildings located just blocks from Wall Street.

That attack was also carried out by alien terrorists who managed to not only game the visa process in order to enter the United States and get past the inspections process at ports of entry, but game the immigration benefits program as well.  This enabled them to remain in the United States and embed themselves as they went about their preparations to attack the United States and cause massive casualties.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first Congressional hearing. That hearing was predicated on those terror attacks and was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the topic: Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.”

On February 24, 1998 The Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, Foreign Terrorists In America: Five Years After The World Trade Center.

One of the senators who participated in that hearing was none other than Dianne Feinstein.  She discussed a number of issues but then turned to deficiencies in the immigration system and focused on the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (at the time of the hearing the Visa Waiver Program had not yet been made permanent).

Feinstein also identified the dangers inherent in providing visas to aliens who are citizens of countries that are associated with terrorism, providing education to students from such countries with education in STEM courses of study who could then use their new-found skills and education to create weapons of mass destruction and even noted how aliens who had gamed the political asylum program had subsequently gone on to commit crimes.

Some of the information she provided was truly startling.

Here are some of the excerpts of her prepared statement at that hearing conducted more than 21 years ago and more than 3 years before the terror attacks of 9/11.

Consider this excerpt:

There are also a number of glaring loopholes in our immigration laws. As I serve on the Immigration Subcommittee, I just wanted to spend my time touching on some of them.

I have some reservation regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist-supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents, as you pointed out, through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

The Richmond Times recently reported that the mastermind of Saddam Hussein’s germ warfare arsenal, Rihab Taha, studied in England on a student visa. And England is one of the participating countries in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which means, if she could have gotten a fraudulent passport, she could have come and gone without a visa in the United States.

The article also says that Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” that her professors at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, speculate that she may have been sent to the West specifically to gain knowledge on biological weaponry.

What is even more disturbing is that this is happening in our own backyard.

The Washington Post reported on October 31, 1991, that U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq discovered documents detailing an Iraqi Government strategy to send students to the United States and other countries to specifically study nuclear-related subjects to develop their own program. Samir AJ-Araji was one of the students who received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, and then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear weapons program.

Yet the State Department often does not do in-depth background checks on the students, and once they are in the United States, the INS has no ability to track the students to make certain they actually study the subjects they claim to study and to attend the schools they said they would attend.

Between 1991 and 1996, the State Department has issued about 9,700 student visas to students from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria to attend undergraduate and graduate studies in the United States.

Senator Feinstein went on to note:

The defendants of the World Trade Center bombing are also an example of those coming in through nonimmigrant or employment-based visas or abusing our political asylum process and then committing crimes.

For instance, Nidal Ayyad, one of the defendants in this case, used his position as a chemical engineer for Allied Signal to obtain the chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing.

There is Gazi Abu Mezer, who was arrested in a suspected terrorist plot to detonate bombs in Brooklyn last year. He came in illegally across the Canadian border to Washington State and attempted to seek asylum, but withdrew his application and agreed to leave the country. Once he was released on voluntary departure, he fled Washington to Brooklyn, NY, where he was arrested for plotting suicide-bomb attacks in Brooklyn.

Finally, consider this excerpt:

Mr. Chairman, under the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress requires the INS to create a pilot project to track information on foreign students — where they are, what they are studying, if they commit any crimes, and if they are studying the subjects they planned to study. The act requires INS to submit a report by 2001. The act also tightens up the asylum process by making it harder for aliens to claim asylum fraudulently, and section 110 of the Immigration Act requires an entry/exit system at all ports of entry by September 1998.

As you know, there is a move on this very committee to essentially remove that.

I know there are concerns over the implementation of international student tracking systems and the entry/exit system required by the 1996 law. And I realize it takes time to build the automation systems and the infrastructure necessary to make the requirements work. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of having the ability to track international students, particularly those from terrorist-supporting countries and having an entry/exit system ability so we know who is coming in and out of the country.

In 1998 Feinstein certainly “connected the dots” and supported them with irrefutable facts that point to the clear nexus between failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel identified and connected still more “dots.”

Yet the Democrats create “Sanctuary Cities” and demand the termination of immigration law enforcement while refusing to secure our nation’s vulnerable borders.

On May 5, 2005 the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, New ”Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.  This excerpt from the prepared statement of the then-chairman of that Subcommittee, Republican John Hostettler, will serve as the summation for my commentary today.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Gives Green Light To Trump Administration’s Asylum Rules

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

Michelle Malkin: Sixty Reasons Why the U.S. Refugee Program is a Danger to Us!

Malkin’s timing is excellent because as I write this the Trump Administration is wrestling with an important legal requirement.  In the coming weeks they must decide how many refugees (if any!) will be admitted to the US in FY2020 which begins in 21 days!

Every year since the Refugee Act of 1980 was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, the President determines how many UN-selected refugees will be welcomed to a town near you.  Needless to say the refugee industry is in high gear putting pressure on the White House to get the numbers as high as they can (they are demanding 90,000) because the refugee contractors financial survival depends on high numbers!

Therefore, the timing of the release of Michelle Malkin’s new book couldn’t be better.

Here, at Breitbart, she pulls no punches and tells us about it and directs your attention to 60 reasons (60 Islamists we welcomed to become ‘new Americans’ while they came to do us harm.)

By the way, Trump can legally set the refugee ceiling for FY2020 at Zero!

Exclusive — Michelle Malkin: 60 Terrifying Reasons Trump Is Right to Reduce Refugees

Here are three facts that the most hysterical voices attacking the Trump administration’s proposal to radically reduce or freeze refugee admissions don’t want you to know:

1) They make billions of dollars off the federal refugee resettlement racket;

2) They are protected by the Open Borders Inc. media, which routinely whitewashes the gobsmacking financial self-interest of the “Let Them All In” leeches; and

3) They are never held accountable when untold numbers of the world’s most wretchedly violent and aggrieved refugees come here to sabotage the American Dream.

While left-wing religious groups, tax-exempt non-profits tied or allied to George Soros, and the amnesty-shilling Catholic Church scream “No hate, no fear, everyone is welcome here!” at the top of their lungs, American neighborhoods are being overrun by dangerous foreign criminals and jihad plotters.

David Miliband, president and CEO of International Rescue Committee, attacked the White House plan to slash refugee numbers from an Obama-era high of 100,000 to less than the current historic low of 30,000 as “inhumane.”

Is it because cutting the numbers would cut in to Miliband’s first-class travel and business lunch tabs? Malkin Truth-O-Meter: mostly likely true!

What Miliband neglects to mention in his diatribe against President Trump that his organization is one of 9 behemoth government contractors that works with the hostile United Nations and encrusted State Department social justice warriors to import thousands of new refugees every year with little input from the communities in which they are dumped. Miliband earns nearly a million-dollar salary*** and by one estimate, IRC has raked in nearly $900 million in refugee resettlement profits over the last decade. When you cut through the Statue of Liberty smokescreen of the open borders “charities,” the math is clear:

Reduced refugees means reduced cash flow.

Zero refugees means zero cash flow.

Why should taxpayers continue to see their hard-earned money siphoned away to feed the Trump Resistance Machine and Democrat Party’s Permanent Ruling Majority Project?

There are even more compelling reasons to throttle the refugee flow. According to the logic-twisting, ICE-doxxing cheerleaders at the New York Times, refugee reductions are the real threat to our nation because if we don’t keep importing hordes of Muslim translators from Iraq or Afghanistan, it would “undermine” our national security.

This is just plain ass-backwards.

Continue reading here to see the sixty reasons….

***And see my post here at RRW a few days ago about the push to admit more Iraqi and Afghan translators.   You will see the proof of Miliband’s obscene salary!

By the way, I am seeing a huge push by the contractors and their media lackeys to pressure the President at this very moment to agree to admit tens of thousands of UN-selected refugees to be your new neighbors.

***Alert***

Editor’s note:

In the near future, we will be moving ‘Frauds and Crooks’ to a new, secure hosting company. There will be times when the blog may be unavailable, but rest assured that we are not going away. Once we begin the move, it may take a few days to complete the move. Please be patient and check back.

In the meantime visit RRW by clicking here.

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

Crimes by Illegal Immigrants Widespread Across U.S.

The decision by a California appeals court Friday overturning the conviction of an illegal immigrant who shot and killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015 once again put the national spotlight on the serious problem of crimes committed by people in the U.S. illegally.

The appeals court in San Francisco overturned the conviction of Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Garcia-Zarate was earlier found not guilty of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a semi-automatic weapon.

Garcia-Zarate said he unwittingly picked up a gun, which he said was wrapped in a T-shirt, and it fired accidentally. The appeals court overturned his conviction on the firearm possession charge because it said the judge at his trial failed to give the jury the option of finding him not guilty on the theory that he only possessed the gun for a moment.

Opponents of federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws enacted by Congress repeatedly claim that illegal immigrants are “less likely” to commit crimes than U.S. citizens—and thus represent no threat to public safety.

But that’s not true when it comes to federal crimes.

Noncitizens constitute only about 7% of the U.S. population. Yet the latest data from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that noncitizens accounted for nearly two-thirds (64%) of all federal arrests in 2018. Just two decades earlier, only 37% of all federal arrests were noncitizens.

These arrests aren’t just for immigration crimes. Noncitizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests, 25% of all federal property arrests, and 28% of all federal fraud arrests.

In 2018, a quarter of all federal drug arrests took place in the five judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border. This reflects the ongoing activities of Mexican drug cartels. Last year, Mexican citizens accounted for 40% of all federal arrests.

In fact, more Mexicans than U.S. citizens were arrested on charges of committing federal crimes in 2018.

Migrants from Central American countries are also accounting for a larger share of federal arrests, going from a negligible 1% of such arrests in 1998 to 20% today.

Critics will try to downplay the importance of the Justice Department’s report by pointing out that the majority of crimes in the United States are handled by prosecutors in state and local courts.

But even there the data is shocking.

A recent report from the Texas Department of Public Safety revealed that 297,000 noncitizens had been “booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2019.” So these are noncitizens who allegedly committed local crimes, not immigration violations.

The report noted that a little more than two-thirds (202,000) of those booked in Texas jails were later confirmed as illegal immigrants by the federal government.

According to the Texas report, over the course of their criminal careers those illegal immigrants were charged with committing 494,000 criminal offenses.

Some of these cases are still being prosecuted, but the report states that there have already been over 225,000 convictions. Those convictions represent: 500 homicides; 23,954 assaults; 8,070 burglaries; 297 kidnappings; 14,178 thefts; 2,026 robberies; 3,122 sexual assaults; 3,840 sexual offenses; 3,158 weapon charges; and tens of thousands of drug and obstruction charges

These statistics reveal the very real danger created by sanctuary policies. In nine self-declared sanctuary states and numerous sanctuary cities and counties, officials refuse to hand over criminals who are known to be in this country illegally after they have served their state or local sentences.

This refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials suggests that state and local officials supporting the sanctuary movement believe it’s better to let these criminals return to their communities rather than being removed from this country.

Not all of their constituents would agree.

The Texas report is careful to note that it is not claiming “foreign nationals” commit “more crimes than other groups.” Whether that is true or not—and it is certainly true when it comes to federal crimes—is irrelevant.

What is highly relevant to the current debate about immigration policy is that the Texas report “identifies thousands of crimes that should not have occurred and thousands of victims that should not have been victimized because the perpetrators should not be here.”

We know that in Texas and around the country some individuals would be alive today—and their families would not be mourning their loss—if we had a secure border and an effective interior enforcement system.

Instead of trying to obstruct enforcement of our immigration laws, state and local officials should do everything they can to help the feds reduce the very real—and all too often fatal—dangers posed by criminal illegal immigrants.

One of the worst recent examples of a state official who refuses to help federal immigration authorities carry out their duties is North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper.

The Democratic governor recently vetoed a bill that would require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Cooper did so just days after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents captured an illegal immigrant charged with first-degree rape and indecent liberties against a child.

The man arrested in that crime was on the loose because he had been released from custody by county officials, despite the existence of a federal detainer warrant for him.

Politicians who declare their jurisdictions to be sanctuaries for illegal immigrants who commit crimes are needlessly endangering their law-abiding citizens. That is shameful.

Originally published in Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

D.I.C. (Democrat Inspired Criminals): 6 suspects in brutal stabbing of Maryland man are MS-13 members in US illegally, ICE says – Fox News

Criminologists Mislead Us


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Ingratitude of the Immigrants

President Trump has been unarguably the most pro-Jewish, pro-Israel President we’ve ever had, surpassing George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman.  His stand against Iran (vociferous enemy of Israel), finally moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, cutting funds to the PA and closing the PLO office in Washington, his donations to Jewish causes, and developing housing for Russian-Jewish immigrants in Brooklyn are just some of the points, but many non-Orthodox American Jews are calling him antisemitic.  It is primarily the Democrat Jews who appear antisemitic when they continue to support their party whose members explicitly express their hatred of Israel and Jews worldwide.  It may be that their desire to distance themselves from their heritage in eastern Europe and Israel has rendered them irrational, and psychological projection has them denying their own impulses as they attribute them to others – specifically to President Trump.

Most recently, President Trump spoke out against the antisemitism spewed by Muslim Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, and was himself accused of bias.   It is time to review the backgrounds of both women who are recognized as Islamic extremists and antisemites by such as Senator Lindsey Graham, Speaker Newt Gingrich, media personalities Mark Thiessen and Rush Limbaugh, as well as by Imam Tawhidi, who added Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the lot.

  • October 2015, Rashida Tlaib joined and praised activists who support terrorist Rasmeah Odeh, who is guilty of the deadly 1969 bombing in Jerusalem.
  • December 2017, Tlaib shared a Facebook post with Linda Sarsour in support of 17-yr-old Palestinian Ahed Tamimi, who assaulted an IDF soldier and promotes stabbings and suicide bombings.
  • February 2018, Tlaib joined Facebook group, Palestinian American Congress, which demonizes Jews and raised funds for her campaign.  She denied both the Holocaust and the Jewish historical claim to Israel.
  • August 2018, for her victory speech, Tlaib wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag and promised to “fight against every racist and oppressive structure that needs to be dismantled,” later telling the UK’s Channel 4 News that she would vote against US military aid to Israel.  Despite her own foreign garb, she accused Jewish Americans of dual loyalty and has since established a record of Jew-hatred and an affinity for radical Islam.
  • January 3, 2019, in a MoveOn.org reception, Tlaib warned that the President’s days were numbered, and she’d “impeach the motherfu**er.”  She took her oath on the Koran, which is the antithesis of our Bible and Constitution, and affixed a sticker “Palestine” to replace Israel on her wall map.
  • A guest at Tlaib’s swearing-in ceremony and private dinner was Abbas Hamideh, who equates Zionism with Nazism, and who voiced his support for Hassan Nasrallah, violent murderer of an Israeli Jew and his 4-year-old daughter.
  • During the week of January 2019, Tlaib condemned her congressional colleagues who did not support BDS against Israel.
  • March 2019, Tlaib posed with a Palestinian activist who had mourned the death of a Hamas murderer of a rabbi in Israel.
  • August 2019, Tlaib compared Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, and co-sponsored a resolution to support the BDS movement. She consistently shows herself to be an enemy of our ally Israel and the Jewish people.
  • Most recently, Tlaib shunned a bipartisan delegation to Israel in order to schedule her own trip to be led by the anti-Israel nongovernmental organization Miftah, where she could agitate for the anti-Israel boycott and use her disinvitation as an accusation against the Jewish state.
  • Claiming racism, oppression and injustice, Tlaib used the event of her entry rejection into Israel to enhance her victimhood, and a way of showing Gaza’s inhumane conditions.  However, videos of interviews of her family show a healthy grandmother, free-standing home, and plentiful grounds with outdoor furniture on a lovely summer night.
  • Tlaib, Omar, AOC and Rep Prammila Jayapal co-sponsored a bill that accuses the Jewish state of torturing non-Jewish children; the bill was re-introduced by Rep. Beth McCollum.

Ilhan Omar claimed to love America but shows her disdain for our country at every turn with a decided detestation for Israel and the Jews.  She called herself the President’s “biggest nemesis”; said of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, “some people did something”; and wants our greatest ally, Israel, wiped off the face of the earth.  The following are examples of her words and deeds:

  • In November 2012, Omar called Israel an apartheid regime that “hypnotized the world” in order to conceal its “evil doings.”
  • In 2013, Omar said on PBS that she took a college course in terrorism, saying that the professor spoke with pride (his shoulders raised in intensity) about Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, but not when we say America.
  • During 2013-15, Omar, then a member of the Minneapolis City Council, acknowledged her friendship with Al-Shabab, a Somali jihad terror group.
  • Omar often characterized Israel as the “Jewish ISIS,’ on Arab-American television, comparing members of Hamas to Holocaust victims.
  • Following the 2013 terrorist bombing that killed ~70 people in a Kenyan shopping mall, Omar blamed the act on a reaction to American injustices, and how the world contributed to Islamic radicalization.
  • After her election to the MN House of Representatives, November 2016, Omar wrote a judge for leniency in the sentencing of nine Somali-born men found guilty of attempting to join ISIS, blaming their desire for violence on alienation.
  • In 2016, Omar wanted the University of MN to divest its Israel bonds, and in 2017, she opposed a bill designed to counter economic boycotts against Israel, likening Israel to apartheid South Africa.
  • In 2017, Omar was one of two MN House members (out of 129) to vote against a bill that would allow life-insurance companies to deny payments to beneficiaries of suicide terrorists, and one of four to oppose legislation to make it a felony for parents to subject their daughters to female genital mutilation (FGM).
  • After only five days of winning her congressional seat in 2018, Omar worked to institute BDS to financially cripple the state of Israel.
  • In February 2019, Omar tweeted that pro-Israel lobby AIPAC was guilty of paying politicians to favor Israel: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.”
  • March 2019, Omar’s disdain for Israel won praise from Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.
  • March 2019, Omar was keynote speaker for an Hamas-linked CAIR benefit event, along with Hassan Shibley, who will not call out Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations.
  • April 2019, Omar called for the release of a senior Muslim Brotherhood member detained in Egypt.
  • July 2019, Omar, Tlaib and John Lewis co-sponsored House Resolution HR496 for BDS,  comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

There is no question that both Omar and Tlaib are antisemites who seek to destroy Israel and endanger Jews worldwide, and that the Democrat Jews who support those policies are collaborators.  Those who speak ill of President Trump and PM Netanyahu and side with the Marxist-Islamic ideology emanating from the Democrat party, who compare the southern-border invaders to the Holocaust’s Jewish refugees, and who failed to attend and celebrate the dedication of the US embassy in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, cannot be judged otherwise.  Yes, President Trump’s honesty may sting, but it is nevertheless honesty.

According to Jewish law, the Democrat Jews are still Jews, but the betrayal of their own brethren and heritage confirm that they are not in consonance with the laws and morality of Judaism – their hearts are elsewhere.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Crimes by Illegal Immigrants Widespread Across US

Incentivized Arab Emigration: An idea whose time has come?

Of all the policy paradigms for the resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs, incentivized Arab emigration is the most humane if it succeeds and least inhumane if it does not.

“Past attempts to encourage Palestinians to voluntary emigrate have always failed, so time and effort would be better invested in reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.”Yossi Beilin, former Israeli government minister, and a principal architect of the Oslo Accords, Al Monitor, August 26, 2019

The above quote is from an article by Beilin, still an unchastened champion of the fatally flawed process he helped initiate in the early 1990s,  in response to a spate of recent reports indicating that Israeli officialdom is considering—albeit with some hesitancy—the idea of offering the residents of Gaza material assistance to facilitate their emigration to third party countries—see for example here, here, here, and here.

Disingenuous dismissal?

Of course, Beilin’s dismissal of the notion of Israel encouraging Arab emigration is more than a little disingenuous. For if past failure is his criterion for disqualifying a policy proposal, the first to incur such rejection should surely be his own preferred Oslowian land-for-peace, two-state formula.

After all, from Beilin’s critique, the uninformed reader would never guess that far more “time and effort” has been invested in an almost three-decade long endeavor to “reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement” than in any attempt at inducing Arab emigration.

Indeed, no other policy prescription has been backed with such massive and sustained outlays of treasure, political and diplomatic capital and…blood, as that embraced by Beilin and his like-mined pro-Oslowian ideologues—in their foolhardy gamble of trying to reach a resolution to the conflict with their overtly Judeophobic Palestinian interlocutors, by means of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal.

But setting aside for a moment Beilin’s disingenuous invocation of the lack of success of previous efforts to induce Arab emigration, there are substantive reasons why the past may well not be a reliable indicator of the future.

The first is that the Arab population—particularly in Gaza—have already experienced the onerous travails of life under a duly elected Palestinian-Arab government.

Documented desire to leave

This of course is particularly true for Gaza, although there is also considerable dissatisfaction in Judea-Samaria, where after over a quarter-century of government by Fatah, all that has been achieved is a dysfunctional polity and an emaciated economy, crippled by corruption and cronyism, with a minuscule private sector and a bloated public one, patently unsustainable without the largesse of its alleged “oppressor,” Israel.

But, it is Gaza, where the misguided experiment in two-statism was first initiated back in 1994, sparking a surge of deluded optimism fanned by the likes of Beilin, that has now become its gravest indictment—for both Jew and Arab alike.

The gross misgovernment of Gaza has left the general population awash in untreated sewage flows, with well over 90% of the water supply unfit for drinking, electrical power available for only a few hours a day, and unemployment rates soaring to anything between 40-60%–depending on the source cited or the sector involved.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to a wide spread desire to leave Gaza and seek a better future elsewhere—which is reflected in both numerous media reports and in statistical polling, which regularly shows that between 40-50% of respondents are willing to openly declare their desire to leave.

Significantly, according to some sources, since May last year, between 35-40,000 have  left—despite heavy restrictions at the border, ominous disapproval of the regime and the lack of any purposeful policy of Israel to incentivize their departure.

Enhanced scale & scope

Another reason why past failures to induce emigration may not necessarily indicate that future attempts are futile is that any envisaged future endeavor must be qualitatively different in nature, in size and in scope to those previously undertaken.

In the past, the emigration initiatives have been timid, hesitant and surreptitious, while the material inducements offered were decidedly miserly.

In prior attempts, Israeli authorities attempted to conceal the initiative to encourage emigration. Thus, one internal Foreign Ministry memo (1968) stipulated: “This must be done discreetly and ‘spontaneously’ and under no circumstances should this be declared as official policy or appear to be organized by us.”

By contrast, what is called for today is an overt, publicly declared strategic initiative, including an assertive public diplomacy offensive and accompanied by a comprehensive set of highly tempting incentives to leave and commensurately daunting disincentives for continued residency in Gaza.

The point of departure for any successful incentivized emigration policy is to identify the Palestinian-Arab collective for what it is—and for what it identifies itself to be: An implacable enemy and not a prospective peace partner—and to differentiate between the inimical collective and non-belligerent individuals, which it may include.

Disincentives for staying; incentives for leaving

This brings us to the disincentives for staying.

As its implacable enemy, Israel has no moral obligation or practical interest in sustaining the economy or social order of the Palestinian-Arab collective—either in Gaza or Judea-Samaria. On the contrary, an overwhelming case can be made – on both ethical and pragmatic grounds – that it should let them collapse by refraining from providing it with any of the goods or services it – perversely – provides today: water, electricity, fuel, tax collection and port services to name but a few. After all, these are in large measure used to sustain the hostility against Israel and imperil the lives of its citizens and undermine the security of the state.

Although this cessation of provision should be executed gradually over a defined period of time, it will undoubtedly precipitate a grave deterioration in the already dire situation that prevails in Gaza.

Which brings us to the incentives for leaving.

In order to allow non-belligerent Gazans to extricate themselves from the inevitable humanitarian crisis such measures will entail, non-belligerent individuals should be offered generous relocation grants to allow them—and their dependents—the opportunity to seek more prosperous and secure lives elsewhere.

As for the incentives, these need to be of a completely different order of magnitude to those of the past and sufficient not only to cover the travel cost of the recipients to their future countries of abode, but to make them relatively affluent and welcome emigres in those countries.

Approximating the Cost

It is not an easy task to determine the optimum compensation for prospective recipients, but for the sake of argument let us assume that 100 times the current Gazan GDP per capita per family is not an unreasonable point of departure. This would amount to about $250-300,000 per family. With the estimated number of families in Gaza around 400,000, the total cost would amount to about $100 billion or about one third of Israel’s total annual GDP.

At first glance this might appear daunting, but if the implementation of the initiative were spread over a period of a decade and half—far less than the efforts to effect a two-state outcome have been tried—this would come to only 2-3% of GDP—something Israel could probably shoulder on its own. If other OECD countries could be harnessed to participate, it could be implemented at a fraction of a percentage of their GDPs—showing that political legitimacy rather than economic cost is the principal obstacle to be overcome.

To give a sense of proportion, the US spent several trillion dollars on its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, which dwarfs the size of the budget required to resettle all the Gazans, together with all their kinfolk in the “West Bank”, safely and comfortably in some third party country.

Who will host them?

One of the questions inevitably raised regarding the incentivized emigration idea is that of who the host countries are likely to be—especially given the migration crisis in Europe following the chaos in the wake of the “Arab Spring” and the Syrian civil war.

Indeed, according to the previously cited reports regarding renewed Israeli interest in encouraging Gazans to emigrate, it was noted that there was some difficulty in locating countries willing to accept them.

Clearly, however, within the parameters of the initiative set out previously, the situation would be very different. After all, within these parameters, the Gazan emigrants will not be arriving at the gates of their prospective host countries as destitute—or at least desperate—refugees but, as mentioned above, as relatively affluent emigrants by the standards of many such potential host countries.

Indeed, by absorbing Gazan emigrants, the host countries will generate significant capital inflows into their economies. For example, a country that accepts 3000 Gazan families can expect a capital injection of almost a billion dollars!

If additional international aid can be extended to the host countries, absorbing the Gazan emigrants could be an act that is both profitable and humane.

The moral high ground

Israeli officials have erred badly in being reticent as to the intention of encouraging Arab emigration. Indeed, there is no reason for any sense of moral unease. To the contrary, incentivized emigration is clearly morally superior to any other policy paradigm addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and certainly to that touted by Beilin calling for a two-state outcome. After all, any prospective Palestinian state will almost certainly be yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim majority tyranny—whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents. Indeed, no two-stater, however fervent, has ever produced any persuasive argument why it would not be.

Here of course, a trenchant question must be forced into the public discourse on the legitimacy of incentivized emigration in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, and of Gaza in particular. This is the question of “Who has the moral high ground?”

Is it those who advocate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic Muslim majority tyranny which would comprise the very antithesis of liberal values usually invoked for its establishment?

Or is it those who advocate incentivized emigration and providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

The most humane; the least inhumane

Indeed, there is another, even more pertinent question to be asked of the proponents of Palestinian statehood:
Why is it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; while it is considered morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

The proponents of incentivized emigration need not feel any sense of moral discomfort as to their policy prescription—especially when compared to that of the proponents of Palestinian statehood.

Indeed, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the incentivized emigration paradigm is in fact the most humane of all policy proposals if its implementation is successful; and the least inhumane, if it is not.

This is the message they should be propounding vigorously, openly and unabashedly–as the harbingers of an idea, whose time has come.

© All rights reserved.

Trump’s Personal Assistant Fired, Caught Leaking Info on Trump Family to the Press

“Look, we want freedom and we want liberty in this country. But we’ve also got to have the guts to stand up and run a tight ship in America. Morality is now a word that many people consider very square and outdated. But if we don’t stand up for it, we deserve what we will get in the end – unprincipled anarchy.” –  Actor Cliff Robertson

“Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government. Like other values it has its counterfeits. So much emphasis has been placed upon the false that the significance of the true has been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning of crafty and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere service.” – President Calvin Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable, than loyalty.” —Cicero


President Trump’s personal assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, resigned Thursday, August 29th, amid tensions.  Trump reportedly discovered that Westerhout shared private details about his family and White House operations. The exchange took place at a recent off-the-record dinner with reporters, per Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and the information got back to the White House. “The breach of trust meant immediate action,” per the NYT, adding Westerhout, who has been with Trump since the first day of his presidency, was immediately deemed a “separated worker.”

Westerhout has sat outside the Oval Office since day one of the administration. She had become a trusted aide to the President.  Unscrupulous behavior and a lack of principles is only too common in the Washington D.C. swamp.  The Deep State is everywhere and yes, moles are still working against the people’s President.

Some questioned her loyalty to the president after a recent book about the White House reported that she cried in anguish in 2016 when the election results rolled in.

Of course, we know Democrats are going to target her next to try and dig up dirt on Trump. I’m sure they are hoping she turns on Trump just as did Anthony Scaramucci, Omarosa Manigault-Newman and Michael Cohen.

Westerhout Career

In the 2012 presidential election, Westerhout worked for the campaign of Mitt Romney. In the summer of 2013, Westerhout began working for the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party Organizing Committee. From January 2015, she worked as an assistant to RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh.  In 2016, she worked as a “greeter girl” for visitors to the Trump Tower during the transition period after the election.

On January 19, 2017, Donald Trump’s transition team, headed by VP Michael Pence, announced that Westerhout would serve as special assistant and executive assistant to the President.  Her salary was $130,000 for the position. The sole way of reaching President Trump, other than calling his cell phone, was through gatekeeper, Madeleine Westerhout. It has been alleged that this was arranged by former Chief of Staff General John Kelly.  She was promoted to Director of Oval Office Operations on February 2, 2019.

VP Mike Pence

Governor Michael Pence was chosen as Trump’s Vice President because he needed a man who knew the people in Congress and could help him pass legislation.  Allegedly, he was Ivanka Trump’s choice.  Pence had served 12 years in Congress and was longtime friends with Paul Ryan, and John McCain who he endorsed for election prior to Trump’s support.  His other close friend who retired was Jeff Flake.  After his stint in Congress, Pence ran for Governor of the State of Indiana.

Had he not been chosen by Trump, Pence quite likely would have lost his second gubernatorial bid for many reasons, but one of them was because he was taking “victory laps” for eliminating common core, when in reality, all he had done was rebrand it.  It’s now the Indiana Core, but their standards are almost mirroring exactly what’s commonly referred to as the Common Core standards.  Link

Pence gives an Oscar winning performance masquerading as a devout Christian, yet he launched a   allegedly to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections…a lot of good that did when 40 of them retired, no thanks to Paul Ryan.  No vice president in modern history had their own PAC less than 6 month into the president’s first term, until Mike Pence.

In a previous article, Our Pro-Amnesty Vice President and His Establishment Friends, I discussed VP Pence’s globalist pro-amnesty, pro-trade, and pro-alien workers goals.  His guest worker program would have required participants to apply from their home country to government-approved job placement agencies that match workers with employers who cannot find Americans for the job. Link The plan received support from neo-cons such as pro-amnesty former Congressman and Freedom Works founder Dick ArmeyLink However, it attracted criticism from conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan, who viewed Pence as lending “his conservative prestige to a form of liberal amnesty.”

Pence is also closely aligned with the pro-Constitutional Convention and Trump hating Koch brothers who are pro-abortion, pro-trade, pro-open borders and cloak themselves as conservatives.  The Koch brothers heavily fund the GOP and countless conservative organizations urging them to promote a Constitutional Convention.

They have financed Pence’s political career since its inception along with Dick and Betsy DeVos.  Pence stated in 2014, that he was “grateful,” for David Koch, who recently passed at the age of 79.

Pence Transition Team

President Trump’s transition team was originally led by former Governor Chris Christie until he and a number of his supporters were replaced or demoted on November 11th because of the Bridgegate affair.  VP-elect Michael Pence then took over.

One of the key responsibilities of a presidential transition includes the identification and vetting of candidates for approximately 4,000 non-civil service positions in the U.S. government whose service is at the pleasure of the president.  Their vetting procedure has seemed less than stellar, perhaps because of who was chosen to replace Christie.

I would surmise that Pence and his transition team staff chose the majority of folks who were on board with the Trump administration, the day he took office, but many people brought in by VP Pence were folks he worked with in his home state of Indiana.

Seema Verma is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Two other former Indiana staff members joined Verma at the CMS office, Brady Brooks and Matt Lloyd, the latter a former close aide to Pence.  Lloyd had returned to the government after a stint working as director of communications at Koch Industries.

Dr. Jerome Adams, Pence’s former Indiana state health commissioner became the U.S. general surgeon.  He defended Pence against complaints of his slow response to the HIV outbreak among drug users in Indiana.

Tom Price, who ultimately was forced to resign, was Pence’s friend when they served in Congress and he was the first secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alex Azar, the President of Eli Lilly based in Indianapolis, was named to replace Price and he was one of Pence’s major corporate campaign contributors, despite the fact that Eli Lilly threatened to leave Indiana if Governor Pence had not watered down Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Sonny Perdue, the former governor of Georgia, became Trump’s secretary of agriculture and he was related to the wife of Pence’s Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers who has strong ties to the Koch brothers along with Mike Pompeo and many others.

Globalist Dan Coats, Pence’s friend and a former U.S. Senator from Indiana was named director of national intelligence succeeding James Clapper, but has since resigned.  He did not support Trump and believed in Russian interference.

Betsy DeVos of Michigan, the Amway billionaire and Pence’s long-time political benefactor became Secretary of Education.

Conclusion

President Trump and his family live in the DC swamp and have endured and suffered so many vitriolic and uncivil attacks by people who should have been charged with sedition.  Yet he fights on for us, for our country, and for every American citizen.  Pray for him and his family, and pray that his future choices are men and women who love and appreciate what he’s doing to save our country and will work hard for him.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Personal Assistant Abruptly Quits