CNN would show only the first half of this video, but it’s worth watching to the end – unless you’re a proud low-information voter.
All credit goes to Paul Martinez.
EDITORS NOTE: This video posted by Red Square appeared on The Peoples Cube.
I had the opportunity in 2018 to actually meet Abby Johnson, who wrote the book Unplanned. I went to see the film “Unplanned” based upon her book on it’s opening day, March 29, 2019. The key lesson that audiences should take away from this compelling movie is that it all about a big lie. A big lie that Abby (played by Ashley Bratcher) and tens of millions of women fall far. Watch the trailer:
This is a film that exposes the big lies preached over and over again by Planned Parenthood.
An important scene that exposes the big lie is when Abby, the newly promoted Director of a Planned Parenthood in Houston, TX, meets with a protester named Shawn (played by Jared Lotz) filming outside of the clinic. Abby wants Shawn to stop filming. When Shawn refused Abby says that Planned Parenthood’s work is akin to ending slavery, stopping the Holocaust and the women’s rights movement. Shawn points out that in reality everything Abby said is the opposite of the truth. He points out that slavery took away the rights of blacks like abortion takes away the rights of the unborn, killing the unborn is the new Holocaust and once inside the PP clinic a woman is convinced to give up the right of her baby to live. Powerful indeed.
Here is a fact check video done by Live Action titled “Planned Parenthood: Lies, no matter what”:
Many of these same lies, told from 2001 to 2009 by Abby Johnson, are exposed in Unplanned. It is clear from the film that Planned Parenthood exists primarily from the money made by performing abortions, not from providing healthcare services to mothers and their unborn child. Unplanned also mentions big downers to Planned Parenthood Bill Gates and George Soros.
As the Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany Joseph Goebbels wrote,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
It is estimated that there have been over 60 million abortions in America since Roe v. Wade. This is 60 million people who would today be taxpaying, working Americans adding to our economy. This doesn’t include the adult children of those who were aborted.
The big lie is now out in full view. This is a must watch film. Take your children and grandchildren. They must see this film. Don’t worry about the R-rating.
RELATED ARTICLES:
President Trump Issues New Pro-Life Rules Protecting Doctors and Nurses From Having to Do Abortions
Wetwork: A Review of Unplanned
EXCLUSIVE: HHS Makes $5.1 Million Grant to Pro-Life Community Clinics
The Numbers That Show Planned Parenthood About Abortion Not Women’s Health
‘Unplanned’ Actress Fires Back At Alyssa Milano’s Attack On Georgia’s Pro-Life Bill
Twitter Suspends, Then Quickly Unsuspends Account of Pro-Life Movie ‘Unplanned’ During Release Week
To begin, let me say that any person regardless of race, religion, or ethnic group who walks into a house of worship were worshippers have gathered together to worship what ever they are worshipping, and regardless of whatever race, religion, or ethnic group the worshippers belong to, and opens up fire with the intent to kill as many people as he can, like shooting toads in a barrel, that person is a coward, and is the scum of the earth–or total nut case.
But, just as evil is the person who shoots up a nightclub during peak hours with the intent to kill as many as possible . . . just because he doesn’t approve of the skin color, accent, or sexual orientations of those inside.
Just as evil is the person who throws a Molotov cocktail, grenade, or other explosive device into a house of worship with the intent to kill as many worshippers as possible, just because those worshippers aren’t Muslims, or if Muslim don’t belong to the right brand of Islam.
Just as evil is the person who waits just outside an Ariana Grande concert with an automatic weapon so as to kill as many concert goers as he can when they exit the concert, because he knows that the concert goers are young girls and this was part of a wider-scale plot to reduce the target country’s potential breeding population.
Obviously, what is needed at this point in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre, is to allow sanity and realism to prevail.
On one level, the New Zealand shooter was right. We are in the midst of a war. This is a war that Islam has declared on us based on verses in the Qur’an and ahadeeth that are so numerous I could spend the next ten pages quoting them. The only problem with this war is that the West has failed to recognize that fact. But, the New Zealand shooter was wrong in the method he choose to fight this war.
Our war is not against individual Muslims as people, it is against the ideology of Islam which is something completely different. Rather than killing innocent worshippers in a mosque (and giving ammunition to the enemies of Western Civilization), this war must be fought in the minds of the Muslims themselves. And, the bullets and the bombs must be the reality of their own scriptures quoted back at them, and not real bullets and bombs. For a preview of what these “bullets” and “bombs” might look like, read the Islam section of my book, and/or the “Blogging the Qur’an” section of my website.
For some interesting insights on the possible motives of the Christchurch shooter, click on Brad Johnson’s video interview posted on www.intelreform.org:
Radical Islamists and the hard Leftists in the West have been trying for years to silence any and all intellectual and academic discussion of Islamic texts that promote jihad and acts of terror. The actions of the New Zealand shooter have played right into their hands.
The term used by Islamists and Leftists to stigmatize all those who offer intellectual, scriptural, and/or academic criticism of the Islamic texts that promote jihad and violence against “the other” is “Islamophobia.” This termed was coined by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which dominates the UN general assembly in imitation of the American Left’s successful usage of the “Homophobia” term to demonize anyone who opposed “gay rights.”
The OIC has used the “Islamophobia” label to get the UN general assembly to okay the condemnation of anyone practicing “Islamophobia” but they have failed so far to get all the member nations to enact “Islamophobia” laws in their own countries. The Christchurch massacre has given Islamists the world over the perfect tool for accomplishing that goal. The Islamists and the Leftist have skillfully lumped those engaging in legitimate academic critiquing of Islamic texts in with the nut cases like the piece of detritus that opened up fire on Mosque worshippers in New Zealand.
On the Islamic side, everyone from the state-level OIC down to the terrorist group level such as the Muslim Brotherhood (declared a terrorist group by six countries) and its front groups in the U.S. such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) (declared a terrorist group by the U.A.E. for its deleterious effect on U.S. policies) have jumped on board to exploit the New Zealand tragedy to further their agenda to silence any and all criticism and critiquing of Islam and/or any Islamic “sacred” texts. In short, to kill the U.S. First Amendment.
That will give the Islamists a free hand to accomplish their goal to “eliminate and destroy the Western civil society and culture from within and to destroy their haughty house by their own hands and the hands of the believers in order to complete their removal so that Allah’s religion shall be over all religion” (from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum for the general strategic goal of the group in North America. p. 4 of the Arabic original which was seized in an FBI raid of a Virginia safe house in 2004, the English translation of which was used in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008).
Another trick that the Islamists and the Leftists skillfully pull is to lump any sort of intellectual, academic, or textual critiquing of Islam with hatred of all Muslims. That is what the term “Islamophobia” does for them. Unfortunately our media and political classes are ignorant enough of the issues involved to fall for that.
In countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, people are routinely killed for doing just that. Even in Egypt intellectuals have been killed for academically critiquing Islam. More recently, others have been put in prison. A high profile case of a couple of years ago illustrates the problem:
An Egyptian TV talk show host named Dr. Islam al-Beheri, who himself is a doctoral graduate in Islamic law from Egypt’s al-Azhar university (the closest thing Sunni Islam has to a Vatican) hosted a show dedicated to talking about Islam and issues related to Islam. Becoming alarmed at the rise of ISIS and the increasing frequency of Islamic terrorist acts in Europe and elsewhere, he began calling for a reformation of Islam. In his diatribes he began condemning the books of ahadeeth (supposed sacred sayings of Muhammad not a part of the Qur’an), as well as the sunna (traditions of everything that Muhammad supposedly did and said–also considered sacred), and the sira (the biography of Muhammad, how we can know of all the things Muhammad did and said that good Muslims should follow according to Qur’an 33:21).
All of these works were composed 100-300 years after the death of Muhammad, so Dr. al-Beheri thought he would be on safe ground by stimulating discussion on the possibility of desanctifying all of these works except for the Qur’an. Indeed, President as-Sisi himself had said much the same thing in his own calls for an Islamic reformation. Well, though al-Azhar couldn’t charge the president, private citizen Dr. Islam al-Beheri had no such protection. The Shaykhs of al-Azhar hauled him into court and had him sentenced to prison for five years for the crime of isa’at al-islam (insulting or denigrating Islam).
Fortunately President as-Sisi had his sentence commuted after a few months in the slammer. Dr. al-Beheri is a free man now and has started up a new TV show called “Free Islam.”
But, don’t think for a moment that the international state-level OIC, the governments of countries like Iran, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, and groups like the international Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in the U.S.A. like CAIR and its allies wouldn’t just love to be able to impose those sorts of laws on us here in the West. That is exactly why the Islamists at all levels are playing this Christchurch massacre for all it is worth. It was manna from heaven for them.
The crime of “insulting Islam” is closely related to the crime of “slander” in Islamic jurisprudence. “Slander” in Islamic jurisprudence is saying anything to a Muslim, or about a Muslim, that he (or she) would not like–even if what is said is true. This, would, of course include any comment about his/her religion–even if true–that the Muslim would not like. This definition (along with more details) is presented by the Shafa’i scholar Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Masri in his classic book on Islamic Jurisprudence ‘umdat as-salik, pp. 730-732 along with quotes from Muhammad himself as related by several of the ahadeeth.
To put all this together, what this means is that any non-Muslim who says anything, I mean anything, about Islam that any Muslim does not like–even if it is true–that person has committed slander against the Muslim, and has also “insulted Islam.” These are only a few examples of Islamic jurisprudence, or shari’a, that the Islamists are itching to have imposed upon the West. In Islamic countries these “crimes” (even when committed by a fellow Muslim) earn the person anything from five years in prison to death, depending upon the country.
Incidents like the Christchurch massacre do nothing except aid the Islamists in this endeavor. Meanwhile the entire Left in America, from the DNC and its leading politicians down to its low-life base of “Antifa,” and “BLM,” are only too quick to assist this effort by lumping everyone who opposes jihad mass murder and Shari’a oppression into the category of “far right extremists” and placing them in the same basket as the KKK and Aryan Nation.
The media in the west has long been known for its biased reporting with regards to domestic politics, but what is really tragic is their rank double standards when it comes to reporting on any event or incident in which Muslims are the victims verse their coverage of similar acts when Christians are the victims.
Christian houses of worship are routinely bombed and shot up with worshippers inside on an almost weekly basis clear across the continent of Africa (including in pro-West Egypt), and South Asia from Pakistan to the Philippines. These events are barely mentioned in our media, if at all. It is as if our media and political classes believe that Christians living in those countries deserve to be killed, just for being there–even though in many cases they were there long before Islam arrived. Egyptian Copts, for example, go back several thousands of years before the imposition of Islam over their daily affairs. And, yet, they, the descendents of the pyramid builders, are being slaughtered like sacrificial lambs in their own homeland. Where is our beloved media on that?
In fact, anyone who does dare to report on those atrocities against Christians, such as Robert Spencer does on his www.jihadwatch.com, is branded as a “racist,” and “bigot,” and, yes, as an “Islamophobe.”
Yet, when a white European type shoots up a couple of mosques like the Christchurch moron did, all hell breaks out. You never hear the end of faux lamentations, and the linking of everyone to the right of Karl Marx (including President Trump and all those who voted for him) with the horrendous deed.
Don’t you just love the hypocrisy of it all?
And so, the big push to silence any sort of criticism of Islamic texts, persons, or practices is on full speed ahead, and is being aided “by their own hands,” thanks to the idiocy of the Left. This is why I think it appropriate to conclude with a quote from Robert Spencer’s recent posting on the Christchurch incident on www.FrontPageMag.com:
“If and when we are all silenced, however, the jihad will not stop. The multicultural paradise will not dawn on the planet; in fact, there will be more jihad violence and strife than ever. There just won’t be anyone around who dares to oppose it.”
hen I took 1984 with me on vacation recently, I didn’t expect to read it. Unlike the two other books with me—Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life and Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist—I had already read Orwell’s classic work. Or had I?
It had been at least 25 years. Most of what I remembered seemed to be fragments of quotes and cliches my brain had absorbed from internet articles and pop culture. Truth be told, I had always been more partial to Brave New World. Perhaps because Huxley’s dystopia had always seemed lighter and less malevolent. Less gritty.
I’m not sure which book I prefer now, but I will say reading 1984 today was a very different experience. To a teenage mind, 1984 is basically an allegorical prophecy of the modern police state. Big Brother is watching. Telescreens are everywhere. Children spy on their parents and report them to Thought Police.
I don’t mean to diminish these themes. Orwell, a one-time socialist who soured on its ideology once he got a good look at it, was prescient to observe how totalitarian surveillance states would operate. (Bear in mind, 1984 was published two years before the Stasi was formed.)
What impressed me reading 1984 today was Orwell’s grasp of the philosophy behind Big Brother, or, rather, its lack of philosophy (beyond Nihilism). Truth, we see, does not exist in Oceania, the totalitarian nation-state that serves as the setting of 1984.
The absence of truth is shown at various times in various ways, but it most famously is depicted when Winston Smith, the book’s protagonist, reflects that it’s only a matter of time before the Party would insist that two plus two makes five.
“It was inevitable that they should make the claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it,” Smith tells us. “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”
It’s not just that Big Brother is hostile to truth, logic, or facts (though it is). It’s that truth, logic, and facts will at certain times inevitably conflict with its sole goal: control.
This brings us to a second observation about Oceania. It’s a land steeped in politics. It’s force-fed to people. They consume it, whether they wish to or not. It is pumped out of telescreens day and night. It comes from indoctrinated children and neighbors. Some of the people reciting the Party’s cliches believe it, others may not. But there is no escaping the Party’s dogmas.
At no point in the novel is this more thoroughly demonstrated than when Winston Smith reveals that even sex was polluted by politics. Here is how he described his initial act of love with Julia, the woman who becomes his lover:
In the old days, he thought, a man looked at a girl’s body and saw that it was desirable, and that was the end of the story. But you could not have pure love or pure lust nowadays. No emotion was pure, because everything was mixed up with fear and hatred. Their embrace had been a battle, the climax a victory.
It was a blow against the Party. It was a political act.
We see in 1984 a world in which politics has consumed life’s most intimate actions. I wouldn’t compare the United States to 1984. But I believe parallels exist.
Politics, few today would deny, saturates most aspects of our lives. It’s in our school systems and colleges. Football games, blockbuster films, and America’s churches. This was not always the case, and the development is not a healthy one.
And then there is the matter of truth. Last year the Rand Corporation published a report. It essentially said our civilization is suffering from a strange condition: Truth Decay.
Truth Decay is defined as a set of four related trends: increasing disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data; a blurring of the line between opinion and fact; an increase in the relative volume, and resulting influence, of opinion and personal experience over fact; and declining trust in formerly respected sources of factual information.
Truth decay might help explain why many people—even intelligent sensible, grounded ones—seem to feel like Alice after she tumbled down the rabbit hole.
“We are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint,” the economist Thomas Sowell recently stated.
Few Americans today would deny, I think, that truth is under assault. It’s one of the few ideas on which Left and Right can agree. The disagreement arises over who are the greater transgressors of truth.
This is not a trivial matter. As FEE president Lawrence Reed recently observed, truth and freedom are inseparable.
“The first casualty on the slippery slope to tyranny is the truth,” wrote Reed. “If you wish to live in freedom, you must first commit yourself to truth in all things.”
Our future need not be as bleak as that of 1984. The first step to making sure it is not is to reclaim the cherished principle of free speech, and not strictly in a legal sense. Rather, we must remember that the free expression of ideas is essential to and inseparable from the search for truth.
The great American writer Walter Lippmann once explained why freedom of discussion is essential to not just freedom, but truth itself.
“…if we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity,” wrote Lippman, one of the founding editors of The New Republic. “This is the creative principle of freedom of speech, not that it is a system for the tolerating of error, but that it is a system for finding the truth.”
If our age is suffering a truth crisis, perhaps it’s because we don’t esteem truth enough. Our society seems more interested in suppressing and hiding from ideas than wrestling with them, which is what an earnest pursuit of truth demands.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that truth “has nothing to fear from” conflict. But the truth will not prevail in a world that prevents the conflict of ideas by suppressing speech.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four,” Winston Smith tells us. “If this is granted, all else follows.”
When I read this line 25 years ago I didn’t understand what Orwell was saying. Now I do.
COLUMN BY
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission.
The Mueller Report exonerated President Trump of claims that he colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. In essence, Nancy Pelosi said screw Mueller’s Report. Her minions will continue seeking to create evidence of Trump/Russia collusion to impeach him.
Fake news media will continue its lies and deceptions to keep their “Trump colluded” lie going. Thirty-four people were indicted or plead guilty in Mueller’s Trump collusion investigation. Fake news media claims this is proof that Trump is guilty of collusion. The truth is the indictments and guilty pleas have nothing to do with Russia collusion. Many were found guilty of process crimes.
My wife Mary asked, “What is a process crime?” One example is investigators repeatedly ask you the same questions on different occasions. If you do not give the exact same answer each time, they can charge you with lying; a process crime. Suddenly, you find yourself in prison for a crime unrelated to the original investigation. Mary said, “Oh my gosh, given my short memory, you would be visiting me in prison.”
For over 2 years, Democrats and fake news media claimed there was solid evidence that Trump and Russia stole the election. Consequently, 40% of Americans absurdly believe Russia tampered with votes to cause Trump to win.
Since Mueller failed to find Trump/Russia collusion, Democrats and fake news media are demanding that Trump be charged with obstruction of justice. Every time the deep state loses a battle to get rid of Trump, their insane rage becomes more out-of-control. Their lawlessness, lies, deceptions and violence becomes more extreme. These people are evil and dangerous.
What gets me is all the deep state scoundrels in the FBI and DOJ who attempted a silent coup to reverse the 2016 presidential election are still arrogantly walking around with their noses in the air and chests poked out. They boldly continue their treasonous plot to take down Trump in plain sight. These traitors should be prosecuted. Sen. Lindsey Graham seeks to investigate alleged FISA abuses.
My fellow concerned Americans, is it time for the Tea Party to reemerge to publicly rally behind our president? We know that our anti-America and anti-Trump enemies within are going to unleash a tsunami of all kinds of unlawful craziness on our country between now and the 2020 election. Fake news media will provide cover for America’s enemies within by calling them peaceful patriots. Fake news media will claim that everything is horrible and Trump must be removed to save America.
A highly visible Tea Party supportive of our president would help to counter the lies. There have been 533,074 articles claiming Trump colluded with Russia, filled will bogus accusations, deceptions and lies.
Because Democrats are protected by fake news media, most Americans do not know the Democratic Party has sunk to new levels of crazy and evil. The Tea Party could sound the alarm about Democrats wanting to murder babies even after they are born. We could let the public know that the Democrats have become the party of rabid antisemitism. Democrat congresswoman Ilhan Omar boldly expresses her hatred of Israel. Democrat presidential contenders gave Jews their middle finger by refusing to attend AIPAC.
The Tea Party could expose the economy-killing insanity in the Democrats’ Green New Deal. In the next 10 years, Democrats want to end air travel, ban fossil fuels, mandated that every new job be unionized and close nuclear plants. Absurdly, Democrats demand that every building in the US must be rebuilt for state-of-the-art energy efficiency. Democrats also want to fund those who are irresponsible and lazy.
Yes, there was a divide in the Tea Party during the presidential campaign. I campaigned for Ted Cruz. I praise God that Trump won. While doing an amazing job for We the People, Trump has been a one man wrecking ball demolishing the way our best interests have not been served in Washington DC.
The Tea Party movement was founded upon restoring America to her divinely ordained position as the shining city on a hill. Real Tea Party folks have jumped aboard the Trump Train because they know he is swiftly moving the ball in that direction. Trump has been relentless in keeping his campaign promises. We must keep this strong patriot warrior in the Oval Office.
From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, I toured the country on several Tea Party Express bus tours. I spoke and performed my “American Tea Party Anthem” at over 500 Tea Party rallies nationwide.
Evil CNN intentionally falsely branded the Tea Party a bunch of redneck racists protesting America’s first black president. As a proud American who happens to be black, I can testify first-hand that the Tea Party had nothing to do with Obama’s skin color. We simply opposed his plan to transform America into a Godless socialist nation.
My late dad was a fan of CNN’s Don Lemon. Dad believed the Tea Party was racist because CNN said it was. I said, “Dad, the Tea Party is not racist.” Jokingly, I said, “They even let me ride upfront on the tour bus.” I added, “I ride in the back lounge because of the huge flat-screen TV. I can watch football to my heart’s content.”
The Tea Party is a grassroots movement made up of salt-of-the-earth hardworking decent Americans who love their country. Period.
My fellow Trump supporters, perhaps it is time for us to create public spectacles across America; Tea Party rallies of positive, upbeat and lawful Americans waving US flags, adorned with “Keep America Great” and “Trump 2020” caps. As I stated, anti-Trump deep state henchmen will behave unhinged between now and the 2020 election. The Tea Party should be their highly visible, righteous and legal opposition.
Diamond and Silk – The Viewers View posted the full rally of President Trump in Grand Rapids, MI courtesy of Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN).
Watch the full rally. NOTE: President Trump takes the stage at the 1:50 minute mark.
David Warren: Religion is what separates America’s political parties. Some on both sides will claim to be devout, but their priorities prove otherwise.
Well, if the Trump administration was not in collusion with Russia, with whom WERE they in collusion? My own guess is the voters in the Red States, but I’ve already heard other theories.
It has been more fun following politics (in a desultory, Lenten way) in your country than in mine. Up here in the freezer-section north, we have a Liberal government that was caught by a naïve and apparently principled young member of its own cabinet, doing something criminally corrupt on a huge scale. But it promptly used its majority in a Parliamentary committee to prevent an investigation. Canadian media are now helping them “turn the page” on the issue, as there will be a general election in the autumn, and Canadian media are about as subservient to our Liberal Party as American media to your Democrats.
Or so say I; gentle reader may disagree. One of my motives for opposing union with your United States is purely charitable. It would saddle you with ten more Blue States, and all the expenses that go with that. It is not my only reason, however. For I am not a Republican, myself, but a Monarchist. (At least we still have the Queen.)
Politics, without religion, is a cruel farce. So is politics WITH religion, as one discovers from reading a little history, but there are checks upon it in the form of human conscience. It is wise in a polity to preserve at least the possibility of collusion with the angels; unwise to limit collusion to the contrary, demonic forces.
By the latter, I allude to “the end justifies the means.” It has been, recently, too openly on display, as the very standard of profane political action.
I don’t know whether this view is controversial; I can’t remember the last time I heard it expressed. No one wants to risk the charge of mixing church and state. But note my implied distinction between genuine religion (that changes a person’s behavior), and false.
As Voltaire said, among his elite friends, it is all very well for them to be atheists, but they should not speak of it around their servants. When the peasants lose their fear, of God and of Hell, they will start cheating and pilfering things. This was not the only instance when Voltaire was perspicacious.
Membership in a “liberal” elite traditionally confers two advantages. The first is, you can lie, cheat, and steal, yourself. The second is that you can rely on the “simplicity” of the unwashed masses, to avoid punishment for it. Today, however, thanks to such as the media, even those simples think they are Voltaire.
The scholastics, no simpletons they, were aware of the dangers of democracy. Rather than unifying a society (“One Nation under God, indivisible. . .”) it divides the people into factions.
Of course, there will be politics under any regime. Men (and women) of eminent station will jockey for place and power. But in representative democracy we have politics within politics – politicians jockeying within every party, giving demagogues their chance.
“The peeple,” as I like to spell them, cannot be so well informed as their jockeys, and can be fooled by the manipulation of so-called “facts.” I am sometimes astounded by the extraordinary nonsense otherwise sane people spout in, e.g., public bars. This includes the notion that “liberty” and “equality” are interchangeable goods. Or that perpetual deficit spending can end well.
But let me return to this question of God. And here I am not speaking of true faith, but mere belief. It is sometimes said that democratic capitalism, or socialism, or any other ideological principle, “would work if men were angels.” I oppose this cliché. I do not think they would work with angels, either.
Here is where the Christian – and the Catholic Christian, par excellence – must be on his guard. The obedience he has promised is not to a cause. It is rather subjection to TRUTH, on which topic there can be no voting. And that truth can belong to no faction. It can only belong to – guess Who?
Yet even in our world of political factions, truth is not equally shared. One party will not be as religious as the other. Let me express this more plainly.
In every polity in which I have lived – and I have lived in several – there is the usual two-headed monster. One party, or more, will be colloquially regarded as “to the right,” one or more “to the left,” with a fiery shifting trench between them.
Yes, there are “independent voters,” who swing most elections, but these are invariably the least informed. Those with any brains to use, by environment or heredity, will long since have decided which side they are on. Those between are clueless.
But here is the interesting thing. This divide is essentially religious. While there may be some self-consciously “devout” people on both sides (until comes the revolution) – their ultimate priorities will not be the same.
Historically, in the West, one easily spots the division. Take Olde England, where the Tory faction was from the beginning labeled as the “church party,” against the Whigs who considered themselves to be “emancipated.” The latter were a monied, aristocratic party, the more profane and at ease with “enlightened self-interest,” less patient with “tradition.”
A heritage comes from that, not only in the English-speaking countries. The instinct to be more conservative, to resist change, is pitted against an instinct to be more liberal and change things. Of course, personal self-interest is, as we are all human, seldom neglected on either side.
I am not under the illusion that your Trump gentleman is a devout Catholic, though it interests me that in his position, he makes ever more explicitly Christian noises. They are “dog whistle” from his enemies’ point-of-view. But even a tiny fraction of sincerity let him come out of the Mueller investigation, politically intact.
Truth will out, eventually.
COLUMN BY
David Warren is a former editor of the Idler magazine and columnist in Canadian newspapers. He has extensive experience in the Near and Far East. His blog, Essays in Idleness, is now to be found at: davidwarrenonline.com.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Soros Wanted to Document Hate Crimes in Wake of Trump’s Election
The Media Have Done Tremendous Damage to the Country and Themselves
EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.
The Somalian pirates have once again sailed into North American waters. But instead of kidnapping coastal dwellers for slavery or taking bounty to enhance their wealth, from the 16th century onward (and again in the 2000s), they are here to continue the process of taking land, America from Americans for Islam and Israel from the Jews for the self-proclaimed “Palestinians.” For centuries, the legacy of Muhammad’s raids has been the acquisition of land and booty/wealth (Maal-e-Ghanimat), gizya (extortion/tax) from the conquered people, and modern-day welfare, such as the annual £25,000 ($33,009) received by Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary in Britain, who urges other “jihad seekers” do the same.
Salafi scholar Abu Ishak al Huweini lamented, “If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or, if possible, twice or three times, then many people on Earth would become Muslim.” He added that if they could not confiscate the wealth, they would kill the men and kidnap and enslave their women and children. American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki instructed that the disbelievers’ property is never rightfully theirs, and may be forcefully “retaken” for Islam, a belief system that supports the Islamic right to anything they want – Europe, America, and Israel, home to the Jews for more than 3,000 years. Islamists continue to disregard the Jewish kingdoms, sovereign Jewish state, and continuous Jewish presence in the land, Biblically documented and archaeologically verified.
It was therefore not surprising, except to those who failed to notice the sharia-compliant hijab and oath of office sworn to Allah on the Qur’an, that Somalian-born Ilhan Omar (D-MN) can so boldly deny Israel’s historic and legal rights to exist. And if she can make headway in Congress while also undermining the American government and people’s inalienable rights, so much the better. Her recent proposal, bound to be superseded by yet another jab before this goes to print, was, “We must acknowledge that [Israel] is also the historical homeland of Palestinians.” That is not the case. There is absolutely no evidence of a Palestinian history before 1967 AD! Those who assumed this false identity were the Egyptian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian squatters who went in search of work in the flourishing Israel and who were ill-advised to vacate the land by the invading Arab armies, expecting to return after the Jews were annihilated. They were to be disappointed. Weakened and isolated as pawns in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, they began an unceasing political, psychological, and propagandist war of conquest in the court of world opinion. While such attempts at land acquisition may differ from country to country – from Africa, India and the Middle East, to Europe, Australasia and America – let us not delude ourselves into thinking they’ve suddenly amended their 1400-year-old ideology. They have not.
The Four Stages of Islamic conquest have been delineated, and it might be prudent to take a moment to review them now, as each stage reveals the clear pattern of their strategy. The list unmistakably shows that we Americans are deeply entrenched in Stage #2, identified as the Consolidation of Power, including, for our purposes here, revisionist efforts to Islamize history – with a foothold into Stage #3.
Ilhan Omar has been dedicated to criticizing Israel and attempting to inspire compassion for Palestinians who, she suggests, are suffering the same “inhumanity and suffering” seen in the Somalian civil war. Certainly not, as those “unspeakable horrors” are Muslim against Muslim. Palestinians have eschewed peace, consistently rebuffing Israel’s every offer of permanent peace, even when they were offered 97% of the land they wanted. Rather, they bind their children in explosives, teach their children to hurl missiles and incendiary balloons, and wield a sword for beheading, instead of engaging in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness enjoyed by Israelis. Palestinian suffering is self-imposed.
Islam is responsible for 34,751 terrorist attacks since 9/11, and 25 attacks (149 killed) in 12 countries during one week in March, 2019 alone. There is not a shred of evidence that Palestinians could live peacefully next to Israel, since their children are immersed and engaged in jihad beginning with their toddlerhood.
Omar further rued, “Without a state, the Palestinian people live in a state of permanent refugeehood and displacement,” yet it is their own brethren and leadership who placed and kept them in refugee status for Western sympathy, they who have refused statehood and peace, they who continue to wage war against Israel, they who sorely mistreat even their own, particularly girls and women. They show no sign of interest in reverting to democracy where even their own people might live harmoniously. The threat against regional peace comes from those who carry out the will of Allah and Mohammed, as well as from the diminutive, ungracious and hostile Omar, who thinks nothing of denigrating the President of the one country that granted her refuge and comfort, America. And so we have Stage #3: Open War with Leadership and Culture, which reflects on the combined efforts of Islamists and the left.
The characteristics of Stage 3 are open violence to impose sharia and associated cultural restrictions; rejection of the host government; subjugation of other religions and customs. Some are already in effect:
Stage #3 also includes removing influential personalities from the media (Glenn Beck, Judge Jeanine Pirro). Islamic militias formed for widespread ethnic cleansing; large groups of able-bodied men assembled in any of the more than 2,000 mosques, of which 80% (1700) are known to be preaching hate and violence against Jews, serving as jihadist recruitment and training centers – and as armories. Also listed are large-scale population destruction, assassinations, bombings; usurpation of government’s political power, imposition of shari’a, mass execution of Muslim intellectuals who do not support Islamization.
Thomas Jefferson, the first to encounter the Somalian pirates, said, “It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war. But if it shall actually take pace, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.”
Later generations will not thank us for letting the fire take hold.
With nearly all of the focus of the immigration debate centering on the abject lack of security along the U.S./Mexico border, other failures of the overwhelmed immigration system are being utterly ignored. Make no mistake: that dangerous border must be made secure against the illegal and uninspected entry of aliens, but the other failures of the immigration system are no less serious and pose no less of a threat.
The majority of these failures center on the lack of resources for the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, an issue I addressed in my recent article about the importance of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), a division of the Department of Homeland Security.
In addition to arresting illegal aliens, there are many other elements critical to the interior enforcement mission. One of the most critical is to conduct investigations to uncover immigration fraud, whereby aliens are provided with various immigration benefits such as being granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even U.S. citizenship to which they would not be entitled if all of the relevant material facts were known.
Such investigations are conducted by a subdivision of ICE known as HSI (Homeland Security Investigations).
On January 27, 2019 military.com published an article, “Marriage Scam Paired Fort Bragg Soldiers with Immigrants, Feds Say” that had previously appeared in the News & Observer and focused on a marriage fraud ring that was allegedly operating at Fort Bragg that would have provided aliens with green cards and access to the military base.
Here is how this report began:
RALEIGH, N.C. — A sergeant and a private at Fort Bragg sought to arrange sham marriages between soldiers and immigrants, offering cash, housing benefits and furniture as incentive for potential brides, according to federal court documents.
Arrest warrants were issued last week for Sgt. Edward Kumi Anguah, described as “the facilitator” of the conspiracy, and Pvt. Ahmid Mohammed-Murtada, a recently naturalized citizen from Ghana serving in a Fort Bragg Army unit, court records show.
The investigation began in December when an agent for the Department of Homeland Security interviewed Pvt. Endasia East about having an affair with a single soldier while married to Sulemana Ibrahim, according to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
During that interview, “she confirmed the marriage was in fact fraudulent,” according to court records.
On February 22, 2019 the Military Times reported on the same investigation: “Fort Bragg soldiers indicted in marriage and immigration fraud sting,” which reported in part on the magnitude of punishment that the defendants in this case face:
Anguah faces up to 25 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, harboring an alien to come to the U.S. and visa fraud, according to the release.
Hoomkwap and Murtadaas faces 15 years and a $250,000 fine for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and harboring certain aliens to come to the U.S.
Ibrahim faces 35 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, marriage fraud, harboring certain aliens to come to the U.S., visa fraud and making false statements under oath.
These penalties are extremely serious, befitting the nature of the crimes that were allegedly committed, and stand in stark contrast with the way a number of films have trivialized the crime of marriage fraud, in which an American marries an illegal alien, not out of love but to prevent the alien from being deported, as the basis for “romantic comedies.” Consider Green Card which starred Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell, and the film The Proposal which featured Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds, Mary Steenburgen, Craig T. Nelson and Betty White.
For many years the mainstream media and Hollywood have distorted the truth about immigration in many ways. Immigration law enforcement agents have been vilified in numerous films, some of which featured big-name stars, such as Crossing Over starring Harrison Ford.
The 9/11 Commission had a far more sobering take on marriage fraud and other forms of immigration fraud. The concerns of the Commission served as the premise of my article, “Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.”
Consider this quote from the government report that was prepared by the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel:
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
Now let’s go back to the news report about the alleged marriage fraud ring at Fort Bragg.
As a former INS agent, the first issue that caught my eye was the fact that at least one of the key players in the alleged conspiracy is himself a naturalized citizen. Hopefully the HSI agents are assiduously reviewing his immigration file to determine if he committed immigration fraud in order to acquire lawful immigrant status and subsequent U.S. citizenship.
U.S. citizenship provides aliens with the “keys to the kingdom.” In the years since the 9/11 Commission wrapped up its work, a number of terror attacks in the United States states have been carried out by aliens who had been granted political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even U.S. citizenship.
The challenge for USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services), the division of DHS that adjudicates applications for immigration benefits, is being overwhelmed by millions of applications that they adjudicate each year with minimal resources to verify the information contained in those applications.
Although the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that Good Moral Character investigations be conducted for each naturalization case, today little more can be done than run fingerprints and query databases with relatively few if any actual field investigations conducted to weed out fraud.
It is also worth noting that according to a New York Times article published in May 2015, when Osama bin Laden’s compound was raided by Navy Seals on May 1, 2011, among the documents found in bin Laden’s personal library was a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, three reports on Al Qaeda by the Congressional Research Service, and an application for United States citizenship.
I compare the plight of the hapless Adjudications Officers of USCIS with the hilarious episode of I Love Lucy in which Lucy and her friend Ethel are hired to wrap candy in a factory. The candy hurtles at them on a conveyor belt that continues to accelerate until all they can do is either eat the candy or stuff them into their clothes.
However, the prospect of overwhelmed Adjudications Officers approving applications because they cannot keep up with the tsunami of applications is no laughing matter.
In the months after the terror attacks of 9/11 we were constantly reminded that to succeed, the terrorists only need to “get it right” once. Each immigration application potentially provides that opportunity the terrorists eagerly seek.
Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association
Statement on Jussie Smollett Case Dismissal
The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association serves as the voice for nearly 1,000 front line prosecutors across the State who work tirelessly towards the pursuit of justice. The events of the past few days regarding the Cook County State’s Attorney’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case is not condoned by the IPBA, nor is it representative of the honest ethical work prosecutors provide to the citizens of the State of Illinois on a daily basis.
The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State. Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received. Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.
The public has the right to know the truth, and we set out to do that here.
When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor. See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15). Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor. Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.
Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law. This statement is not accurate. To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal. See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2). For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)). The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.
The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing. To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed. The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.
Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.” There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program. These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate. This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs. The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency. Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility. To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.
Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions.
This irregular arrangement was an affront to prosecutors across the State, the Chicago Police Department, victims of hate crimes, and the people of the City of Chicago and Cook County. We strongly encourage our members and the public to review the National District Attorneys Associations statement on prosecutorial best practices in high profile cases.
Best Regards,
Lee Roupas
President,
Illinois Prosecutor’s Bar Association
Death to America and Death to Israel
It was reported after Trump was elected that Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Iranian’s and counselled them that all the have to do is out-wait President Trump and the sanctions will be removed. Kerry was criticized but may not have broken any law although he appears to have acted on behalf of Iran without Registering as a Foreign Agent.
Quote: “Tehran’s plan is to wait and see what will happen in the 2020 election,” Ghasseminejad said. “The clerical regime hopes that a less aggressive candidate will defeat Trump and the U.S. will return to the JCPOA,” the acronym used to refer to the nuclear deal
Whether you are a Democrat or Republican one of the most important reasons to re-elect President Trump is to make sure the Iranian sanctions are not removed or watered down and that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its terrorism isn’t financed once again. Never forget, Iran continues to chant Death to America and Death to Israel. Iran continues to be the world’s greatest State sponsor of terrorism.
Trump’s policies are rattling the Iranian regime
BY:
Iranian leaders are running out of options as President Donald Trump tightens the economic noose on the already ailing hardline regime, which is now intent on outlasting the Trump administration in hopes that a friendlier U.S. politician can beat him in the 2020 election, according to U.S. officials and regional experts.
Iran has made no secret of its distaste for Trump, and is now making moves to grow closer with traditional American foes such as China and Russia. However, it has become increasingly clear that Iran is feeling the pain as the Trump administration continues to sanction a range of entities and individuals tied to the country’s contested nuclear program and oil sector.
As the sanctions continue to squeeze the regime—prompting protests that have threatened to topple Islamic theocracy—Iranian leaders have been left with only one long-term option: Outlast Trump and bet on a more friendly U.S. leader who will restore the landmark nuclear agreement that provided Tehran with billions in cash windfalls.
It now remains to be seen how far the Trump administration will go in its sanctions policy.
On Monday, while flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald J. Trump reversed decades of foreign policy by declaring that the United States was recognizing Israel’s autonomy over the Golan Heights. Like so many of his decisions regarding Israel, Trump’s position is one that is as positive as it is bold — and one that is long overdue.
In fact, not only is it standing with our only free, democratic ally in the region, it actually is a moral imperative.
It’s imperative to understand the historical context that you will never, ever get in the media coverage.
The plight of the Jewish people and their relationship with the land adjoining the Mediterranean Sea dates back to the antiquities. Before the 8th century B.C., there was a Kingdom of Israel. In the 8th century B.C., it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, thus ending Jewish self-rule in the area. The region exchanged hands numerous times between the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, and the Crusaders, among others. However, through it all, the Jewish people never abandoned their faith, and they never abandoned their ties to the land.
Fast forward to the nineteenth century AD. Many Jews had been kicked out of their land and were living throughout Europe. The 1800s saw the growth of the Zionist movement by the diaspora (Jews living away from the homeland), called for a renewal of Israeli independence and self-rule.
In 1894, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a French Jew, bought a large tract of land in Golan for settlement. When the Jews tried to settle it, hostility from surrounding Arabs frustrated their efforts.
In 1918, the League of Nations adopted the Balfour Declaration heralding the support of a Jewish state in lands then held by Palestine. Many Jews responded by moving back to the area known as Israel.
After the First World War, Golan became part of the French mandate of Syria, and in 1941 it was passed to independent Syria. WWII saw the unprecedented slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany, which led to the swelling of the Jewish population in Palestine.
In 1947, following the end of World War II, the United Nations recommended that the area east of the Mediterranean Sea be partitioned into independent Arab and Jewish states. Although the Jewish Agency was elated, Arab elements were adamantly opposed to the idea. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, declared the creation of a Jewish state, and on that same day, the United States of America recognized the provisional Israeli government as the State of Israel. The announcement was met with immediate hostilities from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli War began. Finally after fighting for its existence, in 1949, the State of Israel was admitted into the United Nations, officially validating its existence. But Israel’s relationship with its regionals neighbors was not to be a peaceful one.
Enter the Golan Heights again.
Almost immediately, the emerging State of Israel was attacked by the Palestinian Fedayeen, and in 1967, hostilities from Syria and Egypt led to the Six-Day War of 1967. That war saw Israel take the Golan Heights. They won that area like so many other countries had gained territories before them; they fought for it and kept it.
Never, in the history of the world has there been a situation where a country forcefully annexed a territory only to have the rest of the world attempt to renounce its claim. It is interesting that Israel should be the lone example of such diplomatic hostilities. Regardless, between 80,000 and 131,000 Syrians fled from the area.
The attacks would continue upon Israel. During the 1970s, it fended off multiple attacks from the newly established Palestinian Liberation Organization, which quickly devolved into a fomenter of terrorism. And in 1972, the world reeled in horror when Jewish athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists at the Olympic games in Munich, Germany.
The conflicts would not cease — but were not started by Israel.
In 1973, the year after the horrific attack on innocent Israeli athletes, the Yom Kippur War began with Egyptian and Syrian armies launching an invasion into Israel. In one of the most brilliantly executed military responses in history, Israel repelled the attackers inflicting significant losses upon its vastly superior enemies while minimizing its own casualties.
The 1980s saw continued attacks from surrounding countries and terrorists upon Israel while Iraq worked to develop a nuclear reactor while Iran worked to develop a nuclear arsenal. In response, in 1981 Israeli military planes attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The following year, Israel responded to continued attacks by the PLO by destroying its bases in Lebanon.
As Israel forged into the 1990s, Iraq, under the control of Saddam Hussein, launched countless missile attacks upon Israel. Eventually, the United States would invade Iraq and unseat Hussein, while Israel stayed away from the hostilities.
An attempt was made to address the controversies regarding the West Bank and the governance of Palestinians living in Israeli territories through a negotiated solution with the signing of the Oslo Accords with the PLO in 1992, implementing self-rule by Palestinians living in portions of the West Bank.
But perhaps no more poignant a moment occurred in Palestinian-Israeli relations than when Yasser Arafat unilaterally walked away from the table without a commitment after being offered almost unbridled concessions by the Israeli Prime Minister, Erud Barak. The failure of the Camp David Summit led to the displacement of Prime Minister Barak by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, in 2001, still unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.
But these actions would not lead to a peaceful Israeli existence. Instead, another terrorist organization, Hezbollah, largely supported by Iran, carried out open hostilities against Israel, which have continued to this day.
Today, Israel continues to be harassed and threatened by organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, with support from Iran, and although the State of Israel has grown into a strong independent nation and a regional power, its security is not guaranteed under the open hostilities from neighboring countries voicing their intent to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. Through this time, Israel maintained control of the Golan Heights because it gave such a military advantage to its enemies who could see and attack most of northern Israel from it.
So why didn’t the United States recognize Israel’s jurisdiction over the Golan Heights?
When Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 and subsequently annexed them in 1981, its actions were met with condemnation from Egypt, Syria, and other Arab nations. Not a single country recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. Instead, most nations, the United States included, and the United Nations claimed that they preferred a peacefully negotiated solution to the issue, and opted not to choose sides on the matter. Consequently, for more than 35 years, Israel has stood alone on this issue, the object of active hostilities from its neighbors who would use the Golan Heights to attack Israel again.
The fact is that the Golan Heights are of fundamental importance to Israel and its security. It acts a buffer against one of its mortal enemies, Syria. With its high topography, the Golan Heights serves as an excellent reconnaissance venue under Israel, and a strategic value launching site under its enemies. And not to be dismissed. the Golan Heights provide 30% of the nation’s water supplies.
Moreover, to pretend that a negotiated peace agreement regarding this strip is even possible is a nonsensical position and one that flies in the face of reality; a reality that for thousands of years has represented only aggression against Jews and their homeland.
So given all of this history and current reality, President Trump was absolutely correct in discarding the deceitfulness of political correctness that has thus far enveloped America’s position regarding Israel. Indeed, Israel is our greatest regional ally and the United States should unabashedly stand behind it in the world stage.
If the Golan Heights is important to Israel, then it is important to the United States. President Trump’s proclamation on Monday merely affirmed an unmistakably obvious fact — and an undeniably moral position.
RELATED ARTICLE: Recognition by the US Administration of Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights: Political and Security Implications
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.
What has unfolded in Gaza should not really surprise anyone willing to face up to the inclement realities. After all, it was not only entirely foreseeable, but easily foreseen
The nightmare stories of the Likud are well known. After all, they promised Katyusha rockets from Gaza as well. For a year, Gaza has been largely under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. There has not been a single Katyusha rocket. Nor will there be any Katyushas. – Yitzhak Rabin, Radio Interview, July 24, 1995.
I am firmly convinced and truly believe that this disengagement… will be appreciated by those near and far, reduce animosity, break through boycotts and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors. – Ariel Sharon, Knesset address, October 25, 2004.
These two excerpts—from addresses made almost a decade apart—indicate just how grievously the Israeli public has been led astray for years by its elected leaders.
Indeed, there is a distressing record of documented evidence, underscoring the gross misjudgment of the senior echelons of Israel’s leadership on the “Palestinian” issue, in general, and the Gaza one, in particular.
Sadly, time and again, we have elected leaders seemingly willing to jettison every shred of prudence and principle to preserve their positions of power and privilege, even if it meant defending the most absurd policies; even if the ruinous consequences of their actions were not only eminently foreseeable, but explicitly foreseen.
The introductory citations by two past prime ministers, both with rich military backgrounds, are startling in the magnitude of their mistaken assessments.
Indeed, Rabin’s disdainful dismissal of clear and present dangers, and Sharon’s massively misguided prognosis of the political benefits that would ensue from abandoning Gaza, can hardly instill confidence in Israelis as to the competence of their leaders.
No less troubling is the display of inane imbecility seen in the debate that followed Sharon’s previously cited Knesset address, in which the disengagement plan was approved.
Indeed, some of the more embarrassingly erroneous assessments were exposed in a Channel 2 review of the vote, four years later, during Operation Cast Lead. It recorded for posterity the “pearls of wisdom” of many of the nation’s then-senior politicians – who, all at some stage, have held ministerial positions in the Israeli government.
The English-language transcript – in order of appearance—reads as follows:
Meir Sheetrit (at the time Likud transportation minister), with a marked tone of disdain: “Some claim that there will be a danger, a danger in retreating [from Gaza], a danger to the Negev communities. I have never heard such a ridiculous claim.”Ran Cohen (Meretz, previously served as minister of industry and trade), in a voice both pompous and patronizing: “The disengagement is good for security. Right-wing representatives warned about Kassam rockets flying from here and from there. I’m telling you, if you really care about both Sderot and Ashkelon – both of them…we have to understand that if we don’t pull out of the Gaza Strip, in two to three years or even a year, the range will reach Ashkelon.”
(To Cohen’s “credit”, as someone belonging to the Left, his position did not comprise betrayal of his political credo – something the Likud MKs could not claim. His words do, however, reveal much about the “sagacity” of the Israeli Left.)
Orit Noked (subsequently agriculture minister for Ehud Barak’s Independence Party): “I want to believe that as a result of the evacuation of Gaza, the moderate Palestinian factions will be strengthened. Terrorism will be reduced. [Yeah, Right—MS.]”
Shaul Mofaz (then Likud defense minister): “I am convinced the [disengagement] process is necessary and correct. It will provide more security for the citizens of Israel, and will reduce the burden on the security forces. It will extricate the situation from its [current] stagnation and will open the door to a different reality, which will allow talks towards achieving coexistence. [And we all know how splendidly that worked out to be—MS. ]”
Ophir Paz-Pines (served as interior minister for Labor): “Before I arrived at the Knesset, I took my son to Tel Hashomer [the IDF induction center]. He received his call-up papers. I wish to thank Ariel Sharon, because he has given me and my wife hope that my son, when recruited, will not have to serve the People of Israel in the Gaza Strip.”
(Ironically, at the time of the Channel 2 broadcast, Paz- Pines’s son was in fact in Gaza, taking part in Operation Cast Lead – despite his father’s heartfelt thanks to Sharon.)
The program even caught Binyamin Netanyahu in a moment he would perhaps like to forget. For although Netanyahu is perceived as opposing the disengagement – and in fact often expressed his reservations—to his credit eventually resigning because of it – the Channel 2 camera tells a different story, or at least records a temporary lapse.
In an exchange from the Knesset floor, with the National Union’s MK Uri Ariel at the podium, Netanyahu, then finance minister, declared: “Let there be no mistake. In a referendum I will support the disengagement plan.”
The final speaker featured was Yuval Steinitz (Likud, then chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, later Finance and Energy Minister). He stated: “I think this plan, given these restrictions, is appropriate. It’s not an easy plan, but it has a good chance of improving our geostrategic position.”
Then came the vote and the disengagement plan was approved by a substantial margin, 67-45. All the Likud ministers – including Netanyahu – supported it, despite being elected on a platform that urged voters to oppose an almost identical proposal, put forward by Labor chairman, Amram Mitzna, who was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls.
It is with this dismal history in mind that the Israel public should evaluate the declarations and decisions of its government in the present and the future.
This is true with regard to what appears to be the underlying rationale of the current policy—or lack thereof—of “managing the conflict”.
While in some conflictual contexts, “conflict management” may have some merit, this is certainly not so in the case of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs in general, and in the case of Gaza in particular.
After all, the underlying rationale of conflict management is the belief that, at some unspecified time, the Palestinian-Arabs of Gaza will, for some unspecified reason, and by some unspecified process, morph into something they have not been for over 100 years—and show no signs of morphing into in the foreseeable future. (Indeed, it would be intriguing to discover just how “conflict management” enthusiasts envision dealing with Gaza in 20 years time—if no such miraculous metamorphosis occurs.)
With its threadbare intellectual underpinnings, it is little wonder that “conflict management”—aka “kicking the can down the road”—has been a monumental failure. In this regard see: “Mowing the lawn” won’t cut it and “Conflict management”: The collapse of a concept.
After all, while Israel has been “managing the conflict” with Hamas in Gaza (and even more so with Hezbollah in the North), we have seen what was essentially a terrorist nuisance evolve into a strategic threat of ominous proportions. Perversely, after every military clash with Israel, designed to debilitate their military capabilities, the terror organizations have eventually emerged with those capabilities greatly enhanced!
Indeed, if when Israel abandoned the Gaza Strip in 2005, anyone had warned that Hamas—and its more radical affiliates—would acquire the offensive arsenal they have in fact acquired, they would have doubtlessly been dismissed as unrealistic scaremongers.
But of course, what has unfolded in Gaza should not really surprise anyone. Indeed, as mentioned previously, for anyone willing to face up to the inclement realities, it was not only entirely foreseeable, but easily foreseen.
Indeed, as I have pointed out before, as early as 1992—more than a quarter century ago and well over a decade before Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005—I published, in both English and Hebrew, a detailed prognosis, predicting precisely what the security, socio-economic and diplomatic ramifications of Israel abandoning Gaza would be. Sadly, my ominous forecast proved accurate in almost every detail!
But perhaps more significantly—and certainly more disturbingly—in the same year (1992), Arik Sharon himself, the driving force behind the 2005 Disengagement, wrote a very similar article himself in the Hebrew daily, Maariv, explicitly elaborating the perils of the very policy he later so resolutely endorsed—and enforced.
In the article, Sharon recounts how the proactive measures undertaken in Judea-Samaria in the 1970s quelled the terrorist violence there. He then goes on to write: “These experiences prove not only that terror can be eradicated, but also the principle by which this is to be accomplished. It is imperative not to flee from terrorism, and it will be smitten only if we control its bases and it engage its gangs on their own territory.”
He then turned to Gaza: “And Gaza is the prime example. The populated sections of Gaza had become in 1970 an area controlled by the terrorist organizations because the Defense Minister [Yitzhak Rabin] decided to evacuate the towns, villages and refugee camps. Fortunately we returned to the correct policy before the Gaza Strip exploded like festering abscess, which could have poisoned the entire surroundings. But because of mistaken policy—of fleeing from the population centers and refraining from eliminating the danger in its early formative stages – we had to conduct a much more difficult and lengthy campaign.”
Sharon warned against repeating the same mistake: “If now we once more fall into the same mistake, the price will be much heavier than before—because now the terrorists and the means they have at their disposal are different and more dangerous than before.”
He accurately predicted: “If we abandon Gaza, it will be taken over by the terror organizations. Palestine Square [in Gaza] will become a launching site for rockets aimed at … Ashkelon.”
He then asked: “…what will the IDF do then? Will it once again recapture Gaza? Shell and bomb the towns and refugee camps in the Gaza Strip?”
Finally, noting that, “We all aspire to a political settlement…” he prescribed :“…but we not will reach it by way of surrender but only after crushing terrorism and we can only eliminate terrorism if we control its bases, and fight its gangs there and destroy them.”
Albert Einstein was attributed as saying “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”
The problem of Gaza was—indisputably—created by the patently ill-advised attempt to foist self-governance on the Gaza Strip. Accordingly, it is not a problem that can be solved by persisting with the same level of thinking that created it—i.e. by persisting with the attempt to foist self-governance on the hapless enclave and its inhabitants.
Accordingly, then, that paradigm must jettisoned and replaced by another.
As recent history has demonstrated, Israel can only determine who rules Gaza if it rules it itself. For even if Hamas is toppled, there is no guarantee that its successor will be any less irksome. Moreover, if it is significantly weakened, there is no guarantee that it would be able to withstand challenges from more radical rivals—especially given the involvement of Iran in the region and the presence of Jihadi forces in adjacent Sinai.
However, the only way for Israel to rule Gaza without imposing that rule on “another people” (i.e. the Gazan-Arabs) is to remove that “other people” from Gaza. The only non-violent way to remove that “other people” is by installing a robust system of material incentives for leaving and disincentives for staying.
Accordingly, the current paradigm, envisioning a two-state/land-for-peace outcome, must be replaced by one entailing incentivized emigration for the Gazan population, which will allow the non-belligerent civilians to find a more prosperous and secure life in third party countries.
None of this is “rocket science” and one can only wonder why the Israeli leadership has not embraced it—instead of pursuing the two-state pipe-dream which they knew—or should have known—was predestined for disaster.
The fact that the incentivized immigration paradigm may be immensely difficult to implement does not make it any less imperative. Indeed, the alternative of not doing so is far worse.
It is, after all, the only level of thinking that can solve the problem, in which two-state/land-for-peace thinking has tragically embroiled both Jew and Arab—for over a quarter-century. The sooner Israeli policy-makers come to terms with this grim reality, the better.
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right 1843.
Socialism is based upon the ideas put forth by Karl Marx and Joseph Engels in the books The Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. Their idea was to make, by state mandate, everyone equal. The Utopian ideal of a classless society with the state controlling all means of production, either directly or indirectly. In America and Europe this is known as: socialism, Democratic Socialism, Marxism and Communism.
Here is a short analysis of Marxism narrated by Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College for Prager University:
In The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd Kenneth Francis wrote:
Many years before the Year Zero slaughter of millions began in the mid-1970s in Cambodia, a well-mannered, polite Mr [Pol] Pot left Cambodia and went to Paris to study radio technology. While there, he was deeply influenced by Sartre and Marxism. According to historian Paul Johnson, it was Sartre’s ideas that that had inspired Pot’s murderous foot soldiers, the Khmer Rouge.
[ … ]
The Marxist regime [of Pol Pot], between 1975 and 1979, was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians through execution, disease and starvation.
Karl Marx never saw his ideas fully implemented in Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba and now in Venezuela.
In For the New Intellectual, 43, Ayn Rand defined socialism as, “[T]he doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”
In “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 68, Ayn Rand wrote,
“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”
Socialism is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless socialist society, and the soul of the soulless bureaucrat.
Socialism is based upon a big lie. As Joseph Goebbels wrote,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The big lie must be told and re-told and re-told until people begin to believe it. The biggest lie is that religion is the opiate of the people.
The truth is that socialism in all of its forms becomes the opiate of the people. That is until the people learn the “political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.”
We have seen the Russian collusion/obstruction of justice “big lies” played out over 2 years. America became a theatre of the absurd, played over and over again on MSNBC, CNN, and in the pages of the New York Times.
The big lie is in full view with the Green New Deal and its full intent to take over America politically, economically and militarily. The Democratic Party is now committed to the big lie. A lie that they must keep alive in order to gain power.
I conclude with this quote from Ayn Rand,
“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”
Each uncontested absurdity starts with a big lie.
Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the First Lady of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The White House:
Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaido is a tremendous leader working hard to free his country from the grips of a socialist dictatorship. Today, President Donald J. Trump welcomed his wife, Interim First Lady Fabiana Rosales, to the White House.
Venezuela’s story is unfathomable. Once the wealthiest country in South America, years of massive wealth confiscation, suppressed free speech, and rigged elections have brought the country to the brink of ruin. Today, nearly 90 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty. In 2018, hyperinflation in Venezuela exceeded a staggering 1 million percent.
“Everything’s broken,” President Trump said today of the Maduro regime’s destruction. “They have no water . . . The lights are out.”
First Lady Rosales thanked the United States today for its leadership on the world stage. In January, Venezuela’s National Assembly invoked its constitutional right to declare Guaido, President of the Assembly, as the country’s legitimate leader. Within 30 minutes, America was the first nation in the world to officially recognize President Guaido.
“To see [President Guaido] and his courageous wife stand before the crowds and take that oath of office under the constitution of Venezuela was inspiring not just to people across our hemisphere and across this country, but all over the world,” Vice President Mike Pence said before today’s bilateral meeting between U.S. and Venezuelan officials. In the days that followed that oath, the Maduro regime unleashed untold horror—blocking humanitarian aid, killing innocent civilians, and burning medical supplies.
“Eighty percent of the population in Venezuela has no power. They are trying to break our morale,” Ms. Rosales said today. “They want to submerge us in eternal darkness. But let me tell you that there is light, and the light is here.”
America and the rest of the world are watching closely. The Venezuelan people do not stand alone.