BREXIT: ‘The Rotten Unrepresentative European Union is Deservedly Dying’

A word to the patronizing progressive minority, “Sovereignty is not negotiable.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tyranny of the minority. The patronising illiberal elite who think ordinary people are too stupid to vote.

Britain begins the formal process of leaving the EU

Protesting against Brexit is a “march against racism”

Brexit is racist, blah blah blah

Professor thinks ignorant people shouldn’t be allowed to vote

AC Grayling doesn’t like democracy

AC Grayling calls for a general strike against Brexit

Richard Branson to fund a group to reverse Brexit

Nick Cohen is still furious about Brexit

Tony Blair calls on people to rise up against Brexit

UPenn Professor Rejects Islamic Supremacism by Andrew Harrod

amel-mili

Amel Mili

“We don’t only want to be Muslim and eradicate anything before or after,” stated the University of Pennsylvania’s Lauder Arabic Language and Culture Program Director Amel Mili about the historical Muslim conquest of her native Tunisia. She and a fellow Tunisian offered a refreshing rebuttal of the hackneyed Islamic supremacist dogmas dominating Middle East studies at a conference in Washington, DC earlier this month.

Mili addressed a small breakout panel at the Policy Studies Organization’s Middle East Dialogue 2017. Her lecture examining a 1982 Tunisian court decision denying a woman her inheritance on the basis of sharia law shed light on the difficulty of reinterpreting Islamic scriptures for the modern world.

During audience questioning, Mili focused on Tunisia’s uniquely cosmopolitan culture within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. “In Tunisia, so far, we have this global approach of history. I am happy, even if it was through colonization, that I had the chance, for example, to master the French language and the French culture.” In post-panel communications, she added that in Tunisian history, “French language bears the ideas of equality, democracy, human rights, etc.”

Mili confirmed the sentiments of a Tunisian woman in the audience who described how in Tunisia’s cultural crossroads, “everyone met in that small country, and this is what made the rich aspect” of its “Mediterranean identity.” The “Arab or Islamic invasion” of North Africa beginning in the seventh century is merely one element of Tunisian heritage. Mili reinforced this view by noting that Islam “arrived around the seventh century, but before that we have a history, after that we have a history, and we want all this rich background.”

Tunisia’s historically authentic cultural blend contradicts its Islamic supremacist groups’ fixation on “just this time when the Arabs, they came as invaders like anyone else,” such as French imperialists, Mili pointed out. Tunisia had a “very ancient history before that and after” Islam, but the “big problem is that they don’t want to acknowledge the French history in Tunisia or what was before.” “Islam, yes, it is part of the culture, but it is an element of the culture.” She identified a wider cultural problem in MENA: “To have a different identity than the identity I have” often frightens people.

The aforementioned Tunisian audience member maintained that Tunisia benefited from the deterrent effect of the 2013 overthrow of Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood. “Our Islamists were very smart in evaluating the situation in Egypt specifically. What happened to Morsi, they said, oh gosh, next time is going to be us,” and correspondingly moderated their behavior. This certainly pleased secularists like Mili, who declared that “sharia law is the work of humans; it has nothing divine, even for a believer,” particularly considering that slavery, “in Islam, like any other old doctrine, it was part of it.”  “We need this separation between religion” and state.

Mili and her fellow Tunisian offered a refreshingly non-ideological, reasoned view of their homeland. Tunisians and others can take pride in the region’s complex history and culture, a pride that includes rejecting Islamic supremacism. Other scholars should follow their lead.

ABOUT ANDREW E. HARROD

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project. Follow him on Twitter at @AEHarrod. This article was sponsored by  Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

RELATED ARTICLE: Georgetown University’s Qatar campus hosts lecture by former Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader

Rollins College reinstates student Marshall Polston but…

Rollins College has reinstated student Marshall Polston.  Florida Family Association sent out an email alert on March 29, 2017 that encouraged people to send emails to Rollins College board of trustees.  The email encouraged thousands of people to send emails to a dozen trustees urging them to reinstate student Marshall Polston and reprimand Professor Areeje Zufari.  That March 29, 2017 email alert is posted below.

Professor Areeje Zufari should be terminated for slandering Mr. Polston, acting against what was academically best for Rollins’ students and for filing false reports with the college and police.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to terminate Professor Areej Zufari based upon her defamatory actions toward Mr. Polston, grossly unprofessional conduct and filing false reports to the college and police.

March 29, 2017 email alert:

A Rollins College Muslim professor who defended anti-Semitism and aided lover in radicalizing children has a Christian student suspended for voicing concern about anti-Christian and brutal Sharia comments made in class.

Rollins College suspended student Marshall Polston after he voiced concern during two classes about the Muslim professor’s derogatory statements about Jesus and a Muslim student’s brutal condemnation of homosexuals.

  • Marshall Polston’s Muslim Professor Areej Zufari allegedly taught “that the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax and that his disciples did not believe he was God.”
  • A Muslim student in the class advocated that homosexuals should be decapitated pursuant to Sharia law.
  • Muslim Professor Areej Zufari gave straight A student Marshall Polston an F on an essay after he vocalized his opposition to the professor’s and student’s Islamist statements.
  • Muslim Professor Areej Zufari has Marshall Polston suspended after he sent her an email inquiring about the reason why she have him a failing grade.  She claimed he threatened her but the only threat he made was to make public what she was doing if she did not stop her harassment toward him.
  • Muslim Professor Areej Zufari filed a false police report against Marshall Polston.

The following article published by the Central Florida Post on March 28, 2017 reports many troubling facts regarding Professor Areej Zufari.

Rollins Professor Defended Anti-Semitism, Aided Lover In Radicalizing Children

Middle Eastern & Muslim Humanities Professor Areej Zufari’s past includes allegations of radicalizing her lover’s two sons, fundraising for a man connected to the WTC bombing in 1993, and defending “Death To All Jews” statements.

By Jacob Engels

On Saturday, the Central Florida Post reported on the suspension of Rollins College student Marshall Polston, who clashed with Professor Zufari over radical hate speech uttered by another student during class.

Polston says that the student was responding to a question posed about how Sharia Law should be interpreted.

“He said it should be followed to the letter. Whatever punishment was just for anything from homosexuality to stealing, it was to be followed and interpreted as such. It was very concerning to hear,” reiterated Polston.

Weeks before this incident, Zufari had given Polston a failing grade without explanation, after the two disagreed over Zufari proclaiming during the first class that the Crucifixion of Christ was a hoax… as was the idea that Jesus’s disciples did not think he was “divine.”

Polston reached out and demanded an explanation from the professor, but she instead reported him to the Dean of Safety for making her feel “unsafe.”

The straight-A student would ultimately be suspended on March 24th and then face outlandish allegations by Zufari, later that day.

She accused him of skulking around in the brush outside the classroom, but video surveillance from a Dr. Phillips restaurant and neighborhood gate cameras prove Polston was nowhere near the school at the time.

Now the Central Florida Post has uncovered a lawsuit filed in Orange County, FL in 2007 that contains bombshell allegations against Zufari and provide insight into her radical Wahhabi leanings.   Lawsuit is posted at this Central Florida Post article.

Zufari is accused by Rosine Ghawji, the wife of the Maher Ghawji, of trying to indoctrinate Rosine’s two children with fanatical Islamic beliefs. Zufari had been engaged in an affair with Maher and was possibly involved in a secret marriage ceremony in Central Florida with Mr. Ghawji, according to the court documents.

Maher Ghawji has been tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, donated thousands to charities that funneled money to Al-Qaeda, and was even under surveillance by the F.B.I. at one point for his involvement with terrorist groups in the Middle-East.

The court documents also point to trips made by Zufari and Mr. Ghawji to Seatlle, where the court documents allege the two conducted “targeting and surveillance” of American interests.

Ms. Ghawji was not some vengeful housewife who was looking for a big divorce settlement — she actually worked with the F.B.I. as a source for years to inform on her husband’s email activity and conversations with contacts in the Middle East.

That activity proved contact with groups that were listed as terrorist organizations and letters from his brother talking about how he needed to make sure the children were raised as radical Muslim extremists.

It seems Professor Zufari was of that mindset as well, as she is seen throughout the court documents providing assistance to Maher Ghawji and his attorneys.

Zufari’s paramour exhibited Anti-Semitic hate speech under oath in a 2004 proceeding, where he also confirmed he was a Wahhabi Muslim. Ghawji told his wife he did not want Jews in his house.

“Correct, I said I don’t.” He then stated that in his religion, there is an “angel” that will help Muslims and they will “fight the Jew”.

Anti-Semitism could have drawn Zufari and Ghawji together, as she previously defended a Sheikh who appeared on Saudi television and said that Jews needed to be “annihilated.” He continued by referring to Jews as “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets, and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs.”

Professor Zufari was a leader in the Central Florida Muslim community during that time and was leading the effort to bring the Sheikh to Kissimmee for a three day conference. Several anti-hate groups opposed the visit and said that Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais should be banned from entering America to attend the event.

When confronted with his comments, she deflected and claimed it would be “un-American” for authorities to stop his planned appearance. The Sheikh has also called for the death of Americans in the past.

Also under her watch at the Islamic Society of Central Florida, Zufari promoted an event with Brooklyn Imam Siraj Wihaj, who had been listed as a co-conspirator by the U.S. Attorney in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Zufari not only defended Jew hating comments reminiscent of the Third Reich, but also hosted a fundraiser for a man who was listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC terrorist attack.

How did Rollins not do a proper background check on Areej Zufari before they hired her? Her past is a clear indicator of an intense personal bias, one that has apparently motivated her to malign a student and even falsify a police report.

She even went as far as enlisting a student to lie in the report as well, meaning multiple people could face charges for filing a false police report.

After we published our initial report, Marshall Polston says a student from his class informed him via a private Facebook message that “they” were organizing against him.

“I told her that the only person who has committed a crime here is Professor Zufari, who blatantly lied to the police.”

The female student continued by encouraging Mr. Polston to file a counter-report.

Read more

TAKE ACTION:

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to reinstate student Marshall Polston and terminate Muslim Professor Areej Zufari.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email that urges Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to reinstate student Marshall Polston and terminate Muslim Professor Areej Zufari.

‘Zero Tolerance’ Policies and the Making of a Preschool Pariah

The “Three Rs” used to stand for reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, with zero-tolerance policies that ignore facts and logic, it’s reading, writing, and ridiculous. 

Caitlin Miller, aged five, of Hoke County, North Carolina was suspended from kindergarten after making shooting motions with a stick during a recess game of “Kings and Queens” (Caitlin was the royal security detail). Citing the need to provide “a safe and orderly environment for learning,” the school uses a zero-tolerance policy for “assaults, threats or harassment from any student.” The suspension letter from the assistant principal advises that Caitlin was being punished for “turning a stick into a gun and threatening to shoot and kill other students.”

This episode follows a report of disciplinary action earlier in March against four-year-old preschooler Hunter Crowe.  Hunter was suspended for seven days because – according to Jackson’s mom – staff alleged he brought a “shotgun bullet” into the preschool. Closer examination indicated the offending item was, in fact, an empty .22 shell casing, which Hunter picked up after a weekend with his grandfather, a police officer, learning gun safety. Hunter didn’t threaten or hurt anyone, but simply brought the spent casing along as something to share with his friends. The preschool, however, apparently views this (and Hunter’s use of other toys as “pretend” guns) as a sign of a troubled or degenerate personality.

The preschool director’s letter explains that Hunter had already been told that “guns, hunting, etc., are not subjects that are to be discussed at school,” and that the punishment is intended as a “learning experience” that will lead to a “new outlook and understanding about these issues and the safety of his fellow classmates.” Hunter’s mother says she was warned that if Hunter’s “enthusiasm for guns continued, he’d be permanently expelled.” (What next? A demand that Hunter change his name because it is associated with the “oppression of the environment”?) 

Both Caitlin and Hunter are hurt and confused about why they are being banished from school. For adults, the reason is fairly obvious. As we’ve noted previously, these incidents represent a larger trend in schools from kindergarten to high school and beyond to marginalize lawful firearms and firearm use as abnormal by prohibiting speech about guns, drawing pictures of guns, wearing clothing depicting guns (even entirely fictional guns), pointing a “finger gun,” chewing food into maybe-gun shapes, and other benign behavior. In an ad released last year, one group suggested that ordinary activities like reading a gun magazine or looking at a firearm-related video were among the sinister giveaways of an incipient mass murderer.

The ostensible reasons given for these blanket prohibitions are safety and the need for a secure learning environment, yet rules like these can’t legitimately be justified on safety grounds.

Unfortunately, enforcing such ridiculous restrictions has real and disproportionate consequences for good kids. Besides the immediate impact of a “corrective action” like suspension, these students face being stigmatized as “disruptive” or problem students with “behavioral issues” once these infractions are noted in their school records. In one case, a five-year-old kindergartner who pointed a crayon while making “pew pew” sounds was required to sign a “school safety contract” promising that she would not commit suicide or kill others, and had to respond to a “suicide/homicide assessment” questionnaire, with school officials recommending that the child see a psychiatrist. Such actions also have the potential to bring parents within the ambit of government oversight and investigation – Hunter Crowe’s mother was apparently told that in addition to the suspension, preschool officials would be notifying the state Department of Children and Family Services. 

Educators pride themselves on valuing diversity, promoting inclusivity, and fostering the freedom of students to think imaginatively and creatively. Incidents like these, though, suggest that this tolerance extends only to students with views that conform to political and social ideals about firearms that educators endorse as desirable and “correct.” And we grade that as “Fail.”

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Resource Curse’ by Tyler Bonin

The world’s newest country, South Sudan, is suffering one of the worst famines in history, with nearly a million South Sudanese on the verge of starvation, after having suffered through two years of civil war.

South Sudan falls within the bottom quartile of countries in per capita GDP, despite having the third largest oil reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa.

This situation is mirrored in many countries. Economists have given it a name: the “resource curse.”  The “resource curse” maintains that countries with a profusion of natural resources will often suffer from low economic growth, weak democracy, and political violence.  Hence, developing countries with large natural resource reserves are doomed to a perpetual state of conflict and economic stagnation.

Is there any truth to this?

In a recent paper, Peter Kaznacheev argues that the quality of political and economic institutions (defined and measured by such things as rule of law, property rights, size of government, soundness of money, and trade/business regulation) is a strong determinant of economic growth and overall social development within resource-based economies.  In fact, resource-based economies with a high degree of economic freedom have achieved considerable economic growth and social development.

This is currently the case with Chile (the world’s largest exporter of copper), which has withstood commodity price fluctuations to both increase employment and make continued gains in sectors such as education and healthcare. Chile scores high on economic freedom indices.  Compare this with Venezuela, which possesses the world’s largest oil reserves but is suffering severe food shortages and civil unrest; Venezuela falls low on indices of economic freedom.

Freedom Is the Key

So what does economic freedom have to do with political violence?

In the World Bank’s World Development Report, centered on conflict and security, authors surveyed individuals in conflict-affected countries to determine why youth participated in political violence.  They found that “unemployment and idleness was cited as the most important factor motivating young people to join rebel movements.”

Thus, a situation of high unemployment (especially among youth) effectively reduces the opportunity cost of engaging in criminal or violent activity.  This is especially true of those who find a practical living in rebellion participation, as no other feasible livelihood opportunity exists.

John Garang, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, stated, “under these circumstances the marginal cost of rebellion in the South became very small, zero, or negative; that is, in the South it pays to rebel.”

Resource-based economies with weak institutions are catalysts for political violence.  Excessive government interference encourages rent-seeking. Regulatory barriers-to-entry invite corruption in relation to the extractive industries sector and, when combined with a lack of transparency, serve to further enrich the ruling elite.

Where property rights are weak, state expropriation occurs frequently.  Therefore, a weak rule of law – combined with regulatory burden and a lack of accountability and transparency – all serves to further entrench kleptocratic regimes.

It seems that the sequester of resource wealth by corrupt regimes most likely encourages rebellion and violence, especially if violence would provide a livelihood opportunity for unemployed youth, as well as offering rebels the opportunity to capture resource wealth.

The Iraq Case

For example, oil and gas sales from ISIS-seized refineries present the largest source of funds for the militant group. ISIS also pays salaries to its fighters; considering that post-war Iraq’s youth unemployment rate stands at nearly 20%, a violent militant job is at least a paying job, and thus presents a low opportunity cost.

A country’s possession of natural resource wealth does not mean that a country is condemned to perpetual civil unrest and war; rent-seeking and corruption does.

Increasing economic freedom in resource-rich developing countries means more economic opportunities. Cronyism and its attached corruption must be eliminated in favor of strengthening property rights and the rule of law, and by reducing regulatory and trade burdens that ultimately serve the interests of the political elite while reducing prosperity for the majority of citizens.

The “resource curse” should be called what it is: bad political institutions.

Tyler Bonin

Tyler Bonin

Tyler is a teacher at Thales Academy, a classical school in North Carolina.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela

Why Is Trump Waging War on the Freedom Caucus? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Why is Trump attacking the House Freedom Caucus? He has tweeted that “we must fight them.”

My first thought: this is inevitable. Destiny is unfolding before our eyes!

There is the obvious fact that the Freedom Caucus was the reason the GOP’s so-called replacement for Obamacare went down to defeat. They fought it for a solid reason: it would not have reduced premiums or deductibles, and it would not have increased access to a greater degree of choice in the health-insurance market.

These people knew this. How? Because there was not one word of that bill that enabled the health care industry to become more competitive. Competition is the standard by which reform must be judged. The core problem of Obamacare (among many) was that it froze the market in an artificial form and insulated it from competitive forces.At minimum, any reform must unfreeze the market. The proposed reform did not do that.

Bad Reform

That means the reform would not have been good for the American people. It would not have been good for the Republican Party. And then the chance for real reform – long promised by many people in the party – would have been gone.

Trump latched on to the proposal without understanding it. Or, other theories: he doesn’t care, he actually does favor universal coverage even if it is terrible, or he just wanted some pyrrhic victory even if it did nothing to improve the access.

The Freedom Caucus killed it. And I’m trying to think back in political history here, is there another time since World War Two that a pro-freedom faction of the Republican Party killed a bill pushed by the majority that pertained to such a large sector and dealt with such a hugely important program?

I can’t think of one.

What this signifies is extremely important. We might be seeing the emergence of a classically liberal faction within the GOP, one that is self consciously driven by an agenda that is centered on a clear goal: getting us closer to an ideal of a free society. The Caucus isn’t fully formed yet in an ideological sense, but its agenda is becoming less blurry by the day. (And please don’t call them the “hard right wing.”)The old GOP coalition included nationalists, militarists, free enterprisers, and social conservatives. The Trump takeover has strained it to the breaking point. Now the genuine believers in freedom are gaining a better understanding of themselves and what they must do.

For the first times in our lives! Even in our parents’ and grandparents’ lives!

The Larger Picture

Trump is obviously not a student of history or political philosophy, but he does embody a strain of thinking with a history that traces back in time. I discussed this in some detail here, here, and here, among many other places. The tradition of thought he inhabits stands in radical opposition to the liberal tradition. It always has. We just remain rather ignorant of this fact because the fascist tradition of thought has been dormant for many decades, and so is strangely unfamiliar to this generation of political observers.

So let us be clear: this manner of thinking that celebrates the nation-state, believes in great collectives on the move, panics about the demographic genocide of a race, rails against the “other” invading our shores, puts all hope in a powerful executive, and otherwise believes not in freedom but rather in compliance, loyalty, and hero worship – this manner of thinking has always and everywhere included liberals (or libertarians) as part of the enemy to be destroyed.

And why is this? Liberalism to them represents “rootless cosmopolitanism,” in the old Nazi phrase. They are willing to do business with anyone, move anywhere, and imagine that the good life of peace and prosperity is more than enough to aspire to in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds. They don’t believe that war is ennobling and heroic, but rather bloody and destructive. They are in awe of the creation of wealth out of simple exchanges and small innovations. They are champions of the old bourgeois spirit.To the liberal mind, the goal of life is to live well in peace and experience social and financial gain, with ever more alleviation of life’s pains and sufferings. Here is magic. Here is beauty. Here is true heroism.

The alt-right mind will have none of this. They want the clash, the war, the struggle against the enemy, big theaters of epic battles that pit great collectives against each other. If you want a hilarious caricature of this life outlook, no one does it better than Roderick Spode.

Natural Enemies

This is why these two groups can never get along politically. They desire different things. It has always and everywhere been true that when the strongmen of the right-Hegelian mindset gain control, they target the liberals for destruction. Liberals become the enemy that must be crushed.

And so it is that a mere few months into the presidency of this odd figure that the Freedom Caucus has emerged as a leading opposition. They will back him where they can but will otherwise adhere to the great principle of freedom. When their interests diverge, the Freedom Caucus will go the other way. It is not loyalty but freedom that drives them. It is not party but principle that makes them do what they do.To any aspiring despot, such views are intolerable, as bad as the reliable left-wing opposition.

Listen, I’m all for working with anyone to achieve freedom. When Trump is right (as he is on environmental regulation, capital gains taxes, and some other issues), he deserves to be backed. When he is wrong, he deserves to be opposed. This is not about partisanship. It is about obtaining freer lives.

But let us not languish in naïvete. The mindset of the right-wing Hegelian is not at all the same as a descendant of the legacy of Adam Smith. They know it. We need to know it too.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Repeal Bill Left Too Much of Washington Power Grab in Place

Scientist, who predicted Trump win, says President Le Pen ‘very likely’

Nidra Poller in her column French Presidential Campaign: Why It Matters noted:

Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.

Westmonster reports:

A French scientist who called Donald Trump’s upset election win is now describing the prospect of a Marine Le Pen victory in France as “very likely”.

Whilst Le Pen is currently polling in first place in the opening round of the election, every poll has her losing in the second round to either Emmanuel Macron or Francois Fillon.

In contrast to this establishment narrative Serge Galam, who is a researcher with the French National Center for Scientific Research, said: “Obviously, nothing is done yet but her election is becoming very likely”.

Galam insists that these polls don’t take into account those who may not vote or likely turnout overall. Polls have consistently shown Le Pen’s support to be far more solid than Macron’s as well as more likely to turn out on the day.

“The polls show this: People who want to vote for Marine Le Pen are going to vote for her. And a lot of people will vote against her, but in that group, there is a lot of reticence.

“I just argue that we should be realistic about abstention and the role it’s likely to play,” he says.

The establishment could be in for another dramatic shock…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Westmonster.

CONFIRMED: Department of State is going back to ‘normal refugee admission numbers’

Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily received word from a US State Department spokesperson that YES, as the HuffPo reported yesterday, the Administration is going to admit 900 refugees a week for the remainder of the fiscal year which ends September 30th.

As of yesterday, that would mean that 62,482 could be the expected total.  The average since 9/11 has been around 64,000.  (See all admission numbers since 9/11 here.)

So big deal! The Trump team would be admitting only a small number below the average of George Bush and Barack Obama years.  The Dems, the Open Borders Left, the contractors with fat salaries, the Chamber of Commerce and RINO big business lackeys are surely all jumping for joy.

Some have suggested that all we have is Donald Trump, so I need to tone it down.  You aren’t going to hear me making excuses for him.

He is either being rolled by the bureaucrats or he (or Tillerson) has been convinced that businesses need the cheap labor.  Either way, it doesn’t look good!

Fortunately, since no one pays me for my work and my writing, I don’t have to tone anything down!

Here is what Hohmann learned from a “State Department Spokesperson” yesterday:

The U.S. State Department is ramping up refugee admissions back to more normal levels after it had slowed to a trickle over the past month under President Donald Trump.

WND has confirmed through a State Department spokesperson that the administration is set to more than double the number of refugees arriving in U.S. cities from the current 400 per week to 900 per week.  [Frankly I was surprised that they were even bringing, or planned to bring 400 a week—ed]

On March 15 a federal judge, Derrick Watson in Hawaii, issued a nationwide injunction stopping the State Department from enforcing or implementing sections 2 and 6 of President Trump’s March 6 executive order. Section 6[b] lowers the cap on refugee arrivals to 50,000, down from the 110,000 level set by President Obama.

After the court’s ruling, which was upheld Wednesday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the cap reverts back to the Obama level of 110,000.

Consequently, the State Department continues to accept refugees and this includes scheduling travel for refugees who have been screened and are otherwise approved for travel.

“The Court Order issued on March 15 prohibits the enforcement or implementation of Section 6 of the EO,” the State Department spokesperson told WND. “Section 6 of the EO includes a cap on refugee admissions into the United States of 50,000 for FY 2017. In accordance with the Court Order, and consistent with both our operational capacity and our capacity under available funding, we have increased the current pace of refugee arrivals to approximately 900 individuals per week. ” [So this means they must have lots of your money still available (or is coming from Congress!) to spend on admitting refugees!—ed]

Do the math, this comes out to approximately 62,482!

….the 62,482 is not a historically low number. In fact, it’s just barely under the per-year average of 64,000 since 2002.

Continue reading here.

Do NOT believe the lie that they have to aim to bring in 110,000 refugees just because Obama set a ceiling for FY2107 for that number.  That was not a normal number. It was by far the highest ceiling Obama had ever proposed.

Bill Frelick

And, there is nothing MANDATORY about that number.  They are trying to fool us and the media!

I am repeating this section of a recent postThe contractors have been for decades trying to turn the President’s ceiling into a target to be achieved, now Trump is helping them do that!

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch: There is no requirement that the U.S. must admit a single refugee. 

…look at this chart (below) very carefully.   When I found it at Wrapsnet, the last year, 2016, was not complete.  (Know that we ultimately brought in just short of the 85,000 ceiling (a rare occurrence)).

The federal refugee resettlement contractors have long wanted the president’s ‘determination’ each year to be a GOAL (a target) not a CEILING! But, the law says it is a ceiling. Look at the column for CEILING and the column for the number actually admitted!

What do you see?  Rarely does the number admitted reach the CEILING.

In FY2006, they were 28,777 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2007, they were 21,718 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2008, they were 19,809 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2009, they were 5,346 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2010, they were 6,689 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING.

Did anyone sue President Obama because he didn’t reach the ceiling? No!

In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”? No!

You need to let the President know what you think.  Click here for the White House comment page. After you tell Donald Trump how disappointed you are, then be sure to let your voice be heard in the offices of your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators!

One last thing, even if the Justice Dept. has hopes of successfully appealing the rogue judge’s decisions on the USRAP ceiling, there is no reason that they must open overseas processing at this time and jerking a lot of people around all over the world!

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim refugee jailed after he thought ‘raping a 10-year-old boy was okay’ | Daily Mail Online

13 reasons the President must designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist orgainzation

In November of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced a bill, which identifies three Muslim Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance … We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

Muslim+Support+Iowa+City

Goal: Make America a caliphate.

Leo Hohmann in a WorldNet Daily column titled 13 Reasons to Declare Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization presents the following list:

  1. The motto and logo of the Muslim Brotherhood speak for themselves. The motto is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. [Allah is greater!].” The logo includes crossed swords and the Quran emblazoned across the Earth. Below the swords is the Arabic word for “prepare,” which is pulled from Quran 8:60 on the spoils of war:
  2. “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.”
  3. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al Banna, who sought to revive the crumbled Islamic empire, or caliphate, led by the Ottoman Turks. “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet,” al-Banna wrote.
  4. In a book titled “The Way of Jihad,” Banna wrote: “Jihad [means] the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols.”
  5. Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb, known as the father of modern jihad, traveled to the United States before he was executed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966. Qutb saw the world as divided into two spheres: “the Party of Allah and the Party of Satan.” He asserted that the Prophet Mohammad would have rejected any secular government not based on the Party of Allah. Qutb claimed Muslims had both a right and an obligation to resist such government.

Read reasons 6 to 13 here…

We have written extensively about the Muslim Brotherhood’s spread in the American body politic and in the Obama administration.

MuslimBrotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood logo.

The Muslim Brotherhood considers President Trump’s presidency an existential threat to their “objectives of transforming pluralistic societies, particularly America, into Islamic states, and sweeping away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.”

The column “Muslim Brotherhood: Trump victory a ‘disaster,’” in the Middle East Monitor, published on November 9, 2016 noted:

Donald Trump’s victory in the US elections is a “disaster” for the Arab and Muslim world, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesperson said today.

Mamdouh Al-Muneer, a member of the supreme body of the Freedom and Justice Party, wrote on social media that the results of the elections were a catastrophe as a “racist” has ascended to the White House.

“Goliath is coming himself, with his horses and men… what our nation has witnessed in the last period is something and what is to come is something different. God willing it will be for us not against us.”…

The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum” named the following 29 groups as the organizations they believed could collaborate effectively to destroy America from within – “if they all march according to one plan”:

According to Discover the Networks, “By setting up these many front groups, the Muslim Brotherhood was emulating the Communist Party tactic of creating interlocking front groups during the Cold War in order to confuse its enemies and make it more difficult to combat.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Muslim Brotherhood, Fountain of Islamist Violence – Middle East Quarterly

Pope Maker: Soros partners with Vatican to push UN Climate Agenda

Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate

Written by 

your puppet

Over a decade ago, with typical hubris, George Soros bragged, that he “is the Pope’s boss, now.” It appears that his boast became a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Francis pontificate.

The two most powerful men in the world joined forces to form a curious and troubling alliance. One of them, often referred to as the most dangerous man in the world, the other, the Vicar of Christ.

Within a few short months of Argentine Bergoglio’s papal election, the Soros inner circle was firmly entrenched at the Vatican, calling the shots, drafting documents, setting the Soros political agenda with the power and moral persuasion of the Vatican. The global eco movement finally found their critical missing component, the voice of moral authority. The greenies can now deposit their feckless leaders, Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Michael Moore in the recycle bin.

As the recent WIKILEAKS Soros data dump demonstrates, the billionaire Soros’ tentacles entangle policies and create chaos in countries around the globe through his legions of operatives at his Open Society philanthropies. His money funds extremist groups seeking to topple capitalism, and promote radical environmentalism global order. His coterie of advisors spans the globe in positions of influence and power, carrying out his radical agenda.

yore un

UN Secy Gen Ban Ki Moon, George Soros and Jeffrey Sachs.

Although Open Society funds radical Catholic groups, Soros was unable to capture the papacy as his ultimate prize in world domination because the two previous conservative Popes steadfastly opposed his radical agenda. Until now.

The environmental movement desperately needed a new dazzling demagogue to bolster its sputtering global warming cause and silence its critics under pain of criminal felonies or mortal sin.

On March 13, 2013, with the sudden and unexpected regime change in Vatican City, Soros and his UN operatives understood that the climate instantly warmed and opportunities abounded with the new leftist Argentine pontiff. George Soros could not have imagined a more perfect partner on the world stage, one he has been searching for his entire career: a major religious leader pontificating as the moral authority for the environmental, borderless countries, mass migration, and pro-Islamic movements.

your pope

UN Secy. Gen. Ban Ki Moon, Bishop Sorondo and Pope Francis.

Enter, Jorge Bergoglio, the smiling, all merciful Argentine.  Within weeks of the Francis election, Soros’ collaborator, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon paid the obligatory courtesy visit to the new pontiff, and Moon knew something had dramatically changed at the Vatican. After his papal visit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced to the world, “We discussed a need to advance social justice and accelerate the world to meet MDGs and the Sustainable Development Goals. (SDGs) We also talked about the need for all of us and the world to advance the dignity and human rights, especially for women and girls.”Shockingly, the newly elected Vicar of Christ seemingly blessed the radical pro-abortion MDGs and SDGs, but this was only the beginning of the Soros coup at the Holy See.

In the words of UN Foundation (another Soros beneficiary) Vice Chair Timothy Wirth, famously known for his condom tree at his previous State Department post said: “We’ve never seen a pope do anything like this. No single individual has as much global sway as he does. What he is doing will resonate in the government of any country that has a leading Catholic constituency.”

The friendly papal reception resonated among the global elites. Alleluia! Francis gave the green light to the controversial abortion laden, gender bending, feminist driven Millenium Development Goals(MDGs) and their offspring, the SDGs.

Jeffrey Sachs, Special Advisor to UN Secretary General on the MDGs also enjoys a 30 year long economic relationship as a Soros stalwart, close advisor and grantee of Soros’ millions. Sachs headed to the Vatican to craft the blueprint for the Vatican’s rollout of the theology of global warming.

Immediately, the UN, through its Soros-infused stable of experts, began to dominate the Vatican agenda by silencing and banishing any opposing views on the science of global warming. Happily for Soros and the UN, Pope Francis only wanted to “dialogue” with one side of the climate debate.

longsackof

George Soros      Jeffrey Sachs      Joseph Stiglitz

The Soros Brain Trust at the Vatican-The Green Dream Team: Jeffrey Sachs, Economist, Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Special Advisor to the U N Secretary General, and long time Soros collaborator and beneficiary.

Since 1989, economist Jeffrey Sachs has served as Soros’ peripatetic globe trotting expert, promoting his controversial “shock therapy” by lifting currency and price controls, and various other fast paced tactics to introduce countries into the free market economy with mixed results. Sachs rebounded with the assistance of Soros and heads the Earth Institute at Columbia U and reconfigured his skill sets as the UN poverty czar directing the Millenium Villages project, with the assistance of $50 million from Soros. Now firmly transformed as a poverty expert, and environmental guru, Sachs built his fiefdom at the United Nations with Soros dollars and transformed into a poverty expert and environmental alarmist, as master of global warming catastrophe handwringing.

Within three months of the Bergoglio election, Jeffrey Sachs, close Soros confidante, is featured as the premiere Vatican speaker, expert, author, and cheerleader of the Francis Eco Theology.    Sachs became a perfect fixture at the Vatican, with 10 Vatican addresses promoting the SDGs. Sachs orchestrated the Vatican environmental agenda, by building momentum and consensus for the SDGs. With the input of many other Soros acolytes at the Vatican, they wrote the Vatican’s radical climate change manifesto, Climate Change and Our Common Home in anticipation of the coup de grace, the Papal Encyclical, Laudato Si.

Seemingly overnight, the Holy See became Ground Zero behind UN Sustainable Development agenda as climate change gained new spiritual status as the Francis theology of environmentalism.

Joseph Stiglitz, Economist, Soros Co-Author and Collaborator and Open Society Grantee, Member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

He has been called the Soros economist and his point man. Not surprisingly, he and Soros co-authored books together. He is Joseph Stiglitz, who heads the Soros-funded Initiative for Policy Dialogue, which promotes the institution of “a new international currency” and of an international taxation system. Stiglitz also serves a key role in the Francis/Soros Eco Revolution as a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS) which housed and operates as the command center for the Papal Eco Plot. Stiglitz, like Sachs, serves as a long time Soros collaborator, consultant. Soros and Stiglitz often serve as co-panel members at major global conferences, and Soros provided seed money for another radical organization, Stiglitz’s Socialist International Group. Stiglitz and Sachs also co-wrote the Vatican’s radical environmental manifesto, Climate Change and the Common Good with other Soros allies.

Interestingly and significantly, Stiglitz also serves as the longtime economic advisor to Argentine President Cristina Kirchner and her husband, the former President, fellow Peronists along with Pope Francis.   

Successfully embedded at the Vatican lurk George Soros’ closest collaborators to carry out his radical leftist global environmental strategy with the blessing and assistance of the Holy See. Yet, more Soros acolytes populated the Vatican.

The Soros/Vatican Mission Control:  Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences serves as the Vatican’s Academic Think Tank. Its Chancellor, Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, a radical progressive, was suddenly empowered to carry out his extremist agenda when his fellow Argentine Bergoglio assumed the Seat of Peter.

During 2013-2015, the Academy frenetically and effectively provided cover for the UN/Soros/SDGs plot that was hatched and implemented under Sorondo’s leadership as he opened wide the doors for the Soros allies.

Bishop Sorondo deflected criticism over the Vatican’s sudden and unusually cozy UN relationship. The testy Sorondo remarked in response to serious concerns that the Vatican was letting itself become a platform for the United Nations to promote its own agenda. Bishop Sorondo defended the UN and remarked, “the United Nations is not thedevil. Rather, quite the opposite.”

Sorondo seems to imply that the UN is on some mission from God. But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details and the details include George Soros’ team.

The Soros Brain Trust of Sachs and Stiglitz led the papal revolt to promote the UN/Soros climate change agenda with the help of the other Soros benefactors.

The Soros/UN/ Cronyism at the Vatican

Climate Change, not Catholicism, on the Vatican Agenda

Sachs and his Soros allies timed their work at the Vatican with strategic precision. On May 25, 2015, the Pope released his eagerly anticipated environmental exhortation, Laudato Si, which called for the passage of the SDGs. On September 25, 2015, the UN scheduled Pope Francis to address the United Nations General Assembly, urging approval of the SDGs, which fortuitously passed on that date.

Francis proudly boasted that he hoped his environmental encyclical, Laudato Si, would be used to promote the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015, and followed by the passage of the Paris Climate Treaty (Cop 21) in December 2015. Jeffrey Sachs acknowledged that Pope Francis and his encyclical “Laudato Si made the adoption of both the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in Sept. 2015 and the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 possible.”

An eleventh commandment is declared: Thou must reduce thy carbon footprint.

By the end of 2015, the Soros syndicate had delivered to its patron, George Soros, a 185 page global warming papal encyclical, passage of the SDGs, and most importantly, the green light to begin the implementation of the Paris Climate Treaty, global redistribution of wealth through carbon taxes on the industrialized world.

Mission Accomplished, Mr. Soros.

Soros and Bergoglio–a match made in the celestial ecosystems. Their carbon footprints align on many political issues. George Soros is the largest landowner in Argentina (half a million hectares) with more than 150,000 head of cattle, and he also owns massive Argentine financial assets. Jorge Bergoglio, the first Latin American Pope, the Peronist Argentine with a deep concern for the struggling Argentine economy. Two sides of the Argentine peso, one native born pontiff with deep Vatican Bank pockets, the other, a global billionaire power broker with even deeper pockets.

Both love power and chaos; Francis known for his infamous refrain “make a mess, create chaos,” and Soros for his cryptic “discern the chaos and become rich.” Both men understand that they emerge more powerful when institutions and governments are destabilized.

Jorge and George, identical political globalist ideologues: environmentalists, pro-Iran, pro-UN, pro-Cuba, pro-Argentina, pro-mass migration, pro-borderless world, anti death penalty, and, anti-Trump.

George Soros is now the boss of Pope Francis.Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

It’s an inconvenient truth.

ABOUT ELIZABETH YORE

Remnant columnist, Elizabeth Yore, served on the Heartland Institute Delegation that traveled to the Vatican in April 2015 to urge Pope Francis to re-examine his reliance on UN population control proponents who promote climate change. We feature her work both here on our website and in our print edition.  To make sure you don’t miss any of it, subscribe to The Remnant right now.

RELATED ARTICLES:

THE POPE’S BOSS?! — Wikileaks reveals Pope and Soros An Unholy Alliance

Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules

It should be commonsense that a nation’s security begins and ends at its borders.

The primary mission of the military is to keep America’s enemies as far from its shores as possible.

There is a stirring Navy commercial “America’s Navy – The Shield” in which numerous members of the United States Navy from a wide array of divisions appear on screen and a voice says, “To get to you they’d have to get past us.”

Indeed, the valiant members of our armed forces from all five branches routinely go in harm’s way to defend America and Americans.

However, as we saw all too clearly on September 11, 2001, in this era of asymmetrical warfare, America’s enemies are likely to not come to our country in a warship but on an airliner.

Indeed, on that horrific day more than 15 years ago, 19 men from the Middle East carried out the deadliest terror attack ever mounted on American soil.  The casualties of 9/11 surpassed the number of casualties that the Japanese fleet inflicted on the United States at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The 9/11 Commission was convened to determine the vulnerabilities that the terrorists successfully exploited to attack the United States.  Among the most fundamental vulnerabilities were those that pertain to the various components of the immigration system.

I addressed these issues in my article “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”

Immigration Law Enforcement Is Not About Xenophobia But Commonsense:

To be clear, our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity but everything to do with preventing the entry of aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases or mental illness as well as aliens who are criminals, spies, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, war criminals and terrorists.

The federal government created the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of those terror attacks to better protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorism.  The enforcement of our immigration laws was moved into that new department because it was understood that border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the United States back-stops the efforts of the military to prevent the entry and embedding of terrorists and criminals in the United States.

You would think that across America our nation’s leaders, irrespective of party affiliations, would all be in agreement about the need to prevent the entry of terrorists and criminals into the United States.

You would think there would be universal agreement to prevent contraband such as narcotics and dangerous weapons from entering the United States in this perilous era.

It would also seem that these concerns would be of particular focus for the political leaders of New York City, the city that bore the brunt of the hellacious attacks of 9/11 especially when you realize that there had been a previous deadly terror attack committed at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and still other attacks in New York.

Certainly Mayor DeBlasio and New York Senator Chuck Schumer make frequent note of those terror attacks to demand that Washington provide additional funding to protect New York City from international terrorists.

However, over time, the nexus between immigration and national security has been, by design, gradually expunged from the narrative.

Over time, beginning with President Jimmy Carter’s strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, the term alien has been replaced by the term immigrant.

Any effort to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens is now met with accusations of racism, xenophobia, nativism and other such insults.

The complicit mainstream media has come to refer to anyone who calls for securing our borders against illegal entry as being “Anti-Immigrant” while immigration anarchists have been re-branded “Pro-Immigrant.”

By blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens has tragically conditioned many Americans to believe that the term “Immigrant” is synonymous with “law violator” when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Trump administration is not seeking to deport true “Immigrants” unless, of course a lawful immigrant commits certain serious crimes.

One progressive organization, Credo Action, posted this petition with the bogus premise: Senate Democrats: Block Trump’s attacks on immigrants.

The push for the deportation of illegal aliens must not be confused with the bogus narrative of the politicians who say that they will prevent President Trump from deporting immigrants.  The administration is not attempting to deport immigrants but is attempting to deport illegal aliens, especially when they have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to public safety the same way that criminals living in public housing pose a threat to public safety.

Not content with simply declaring NYC a “Sanctuary City” DeBlasio has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with municipal identity documents that help illegal aliens embed themselves in NYC and provide them with a level of credibility they should not have.

After Donald Trump was elected president, ABC News reported, Mayor Says If Trump Tries To Deport Undocumented Immigrants He’ll Destroy IDNYC Data.

Following the attacks of 9/11 politicians from both parties stood in front of forests of microphones at news conferences and demanded to know, “Why did no one connect the dots?”

Now Mr. DeBlasio has unbelievably threatened to erase potential dots, thereby obstructing governmental administration in matters involving national security.

When I have attempted to explain immigration law enforcement in a way that most folks could relate to, I have come to say that the difference between an immigrant and and illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

When I provided a deposition to the law firm retained by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to help in their defense against the Obama DOJ lawsuit over SB 1070 (Arizona’s immigration law that largely paralleled our federal immigration laws) I noted that “During the first four years of my career with the INS when I served as an immigration inspector at JFK International Airport in New York City, you could say that I had my eye to the peephole to America’s front door.”

I believe the analogy of comparing our homes with our nation and how reasonable people take whatever measures they can to protect themselves and their homes by locking their doors at night and being careful about letting strangers into their homes or apartments parallels the mission of immigration law enforcement for the United States.

That analogy works quite well and is worth considering today considering that on March 29, 2017 Spectrum News published a report, “NYPD and NYCHA Need to Do More to Remove Criminals from Public Housing, DOI Says.”

That report prompted me to do a bit of research on the issue of how, in New York City, residents of public housing become subject to eviction when they are convicted of committing certain serious crimes and may be excluded from living in public housing permanently.

I found a December 2015 New York Times article, “Report Details ‘Systemic Failures’ in Communication Between New York Police and Housing Authority” that contained a quote from none other than New York City’s Mayor DeBlasio.

Here is the pertinent segment of the news article:

The issue of excluding violent offenders from public housing gained new attention after the fatal shooting of Officer Randolph Holder near the East River Houses in Upper Manhattan on Oct. 20. The authorities have said the officer was killed by a man, Tyrone Howard, who should have been barred from public housing long before based on his criminal history.

Without mentioning the investigation or its findings, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office issued a news release last week promising improved interagency communication and strategies “aimed at quickly and accurately identifying individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety and taking appropriate action.”

“Improved N.Y.P.D. and Nycha communication and process will shorten eviction and exclusion proceedings from public housing to weeks, as opposed to months, for serious offenders,” Mr. de Blasio said in the statement.

This is absolutely stunning.

Mr. DeBlasio has shown commonsense about keeping criminals out of public housing the same way that DeBlasio’s mayoral predecessor and proponent of Sanctuary Cities, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, demanded that police officers patrol public housing and arrest anyone who would trespass on public housing because, he stated, such trespassers pose a threat to the safety of those who live in public housing.

However, while DeBasio is all for evicting criminals from public housing to keep the residents of those housing developments safe, he determined to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens from the United States.

The hypocrisy is startling. and provides evidence of Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

On March 15, 2017 Newsday quoted the Speaker of the New York City Counsel in an article, NYC’s Mark-Viverito: Trump deportation plan ‘ethnic cleansing.’

The term depravity come to mind in contemplating her reckless, incendiary and outrageous allegations.  Could you imagine if President Trump had said anything that even approached that insane statement?

In “Sanctuary Cities” public safety, law, reason, commonsense and morality are mere speed bumps to be overcome to create immigration anarchy.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Case Against Immigration | Foreign Affairs

RELATED INFOGRAPHICS:

 

Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Map of sanctuary cities and counties.

list of top 12 sanctuary cities

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

EXPLAINED: Why There Is No Trump-Russia ‘Scandal,’ but maybe Obama-Russia…

We’re going to get into the full context, but to jump straight to the point: There is absolutely nothing to the Russian scandal narrative pushed by Democrats and the media — which are largely the same. Nothing.

Liberals have suddenly discovered that the Russian reset failed and the country remains an enemy or opponent. This occurred not during Russia’s aggressions around the world or hacking U.S. companies, but when they may have hacked into the Democratic National Committee. So now no one in the Trump campaign, or connected to Trump, should ever have talked to the Russians before the 2016 election.

Of course this is nonsense, but to see just how nonsensical we’ll completely dismantle the narrative step by step to show that there is, truly, no “there” there.

  • The Russians did not hack the election.
  • The Russians did not unduly attempt to influence the election.
  • Vladimir Putin does not have a bromance with Donald Trump.
  • Sen. Jeff Sessions did nothing wrong in meeting with the Russian Ambassador.
  • There was no secret collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians.
  • There are, however, some serious questions about connections and actions between President Obama and Russia.

All of the above statements can be made definitively based on all the information we have at this point, and all we know about our history to provide the context that the media will not provide.

There actually is almost no story here. A sidebar of mild interest. But there is a reason the Democrats have latched onto it and the media is lashing it forward.

First, we debunk the whole thing.

The Russians did not hack the election

There is no evidence that the Russians hacked into the actual election in any way. No polling places were compromised by Russians. No ballots tampered with (by Russians.) The votes of Americans were duly counted, along with some unknown number of illegal immigrants.

There is evidence that the Russians hacked into the computers of the Democratic National Committee. There is a decent case for this, although it is not enough to call it a fact. Also, seldom mentioned, is that the Russians tried to hack into the computers of the Republican National Committee. They were unable to break into those computers.

However, hacking into party computers is not “hacking the election.” Hacking the election is meant to convey the idea that the Russians changed the results, that they stole the election from Hillary Clinton to give it to Donald Trump. For that, as we will see, there is no actual evidence.

Using the phrase “hacked the election,” however, is a conflation of items to reach a desired conclusion. We will see this methodological spin throughout the attempts to indict the Trump administration.

The Russians did not *unduly* attempt to influence the election

The key here is “unduly.” Because historical and global context is huge. Reporting makes it sound like all this started last year. That’s just journalistic malpractice.

The reason for “unduly” is that by any criterion, this is standard practice among nations, and most definitely with Russia toward the United States.

The French government sought to influence the election of our first presidents to enlist U.S. aid in their long-running war with Great Britain. They favored Thomas Jefferson’s position and opposed George Washington. The British attempted to influence several U.S. elections in the 1800s, usually due to European intrigues.

In 1941, Britain used several methods to get a pro-interventionist Republican nominated against FDR in his third presidential bid. Later in the general election, the British used a fictional map falsely attributed to Hitler to force both candidates into a stronger interventionist position.

In 1960, the Soviets held captured U-2 pilot Gary Powers after his spy plane crashed in Russia, purposely delaying his release until after the presidential elections to benefit John F. Kennedy. Soviet Premier Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that it worked: “We kept Nixon from being able to claim that he could deal with the Russians; our ploy made a difference of at least half a million votes, which gave Kennedy the edge he needed.”

During the Cold War years, the Soviets sought to influence U.S. public opinion on a range of issues, including elections. Maybe most interesting, however, is the collusion Sen. Ted Kennedy sought with Russia to undermine the reelection of President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

Kennedy initiated this. He offered to travel to Moscow to meet with then-Soviet leader Andrei Andropov — who hated and feared Reagan — and promised to arrange several TV interviews for Andropov. Kennedy assured Andropov he could get the Russian dictator media sit-downs and that they would look like honest journalism. We don’t know for sure whether the Russians acted on any of it, or if some other deal was struck.

Tellingly, when this was discovered in the opened KGB archives in 1991, the London Times did an extensive story on it. The U.S. media — aligned with the Democratic Party — ignored the story, even as Kennedy sat as a leading Senator and was reverently referred to as the “lion of the Senate.”

And by the way, the U.S. has attempted to influence elections in other countries for years. In fact, this is a common practice among nations. There is a whole database detailing it. Hysteria over Russia trying to influence the U.S. election is barely even news if honest news judgment is exercised — except when it is useful.

So any Russian interference there may have been in the recent U.S. elections is, in itself, not huge news when we realize how common this practice is. You just won’t learn that from the media.

There is no Putin-Trump bromance

Here lies another canard in the narrative. It goes like this: Putin complemented Trump. Trump likes complements. Trump replied in fashion. In another president, this would be called basic diplomacy.

But because Democrats and the media are whigged out over Russia, and over Trump, this rather boring exchange has become a basis for there being a bromance — current linguistic currency for a close male bond. It’s as silly as it sounds, at every level.

In fact, no less publications than USA Today and Newsweek used the term in their headlines. Yes, journalism has really declined.

But there are clear and stated flash points. Putin has long wanted to rebuild the Russian Empire, and made some headway during Obama’s feckless years. Trump ran on making America great again both domestically and around the world and is determined to rebuild the American military. No friend of Putin would be rebuilding our military. In fact, that and a strong economy — the other arm of Trump’s campaign — would be the two areas Putin would least like to see. That’s some bad bromancing.

There are potential places of cooperation with Russia, particularly against Islamic jihadism. Putin’s southern border and provinces are crawling with jihadists and there have been terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere. As in Nazism, there is a common enemy. That is usually called Realpolitik, a la Henry Kissinger.

The way in which Obama worked with Russia was the unilateral withdrawal of America’s deterrent umbrella in Eastern Europe. Yes, as in Crimea and Ukraine and even Syria, it was just basically a give away to weaken the American position. And remember, the Iran deal greatly benefitted both an Islamic terrorist-exporting regime and an ally of Russia.

There was no secret collusion, no Sessions problems

United States Senators meet with foreign leaders routinely, particularly those that sit on Senate committees that are involved with international interests, such as the Senate Armed Services Committee. Jeff Sessions was a U.S. Senator during the 2016 election campaign. He served on the Armed Services Committee. He met with the Russian Ambassador.

Yup. That’s pretty much it. That is the basis for the entire fabricated controversy.

The only potential additional issue is that during his confirmation hearings to become U.S. Attorney General, Sessions said he did not have any contacts with the Russians during the campaign. This is muddy because the context is that the question was part of a series from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., that was focused on Session’s actions as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. In that sense, he had no contacts with the Russians. But as a Senator, he did.

Watching video of the hearings, it seems likely Sessions was answering Franken as part of the Trump team, not as a Senator. However, ideally he should have clarified. And when it came out, he could have clarified. But that is a messaging issue, not a scandal.

To that point, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tweeted out in a huff that Sessions was compromised as the Trump Administration’s Attorney General because he met with the Ambassador. She claimed that she had never met with the man, suggesting how rare such an event would be. But then it turns out that McCaskill had met with the Russian Ambassador in 2013. And tweeted about it.

Did she lie in her tweet or did she forget the four-year-old meeting? Who knows. Either way, it’s hardly a scandal. Except when a Republican does it. And such meetings with foreign leaders are common. In fact, Sessions met with at least 10 foreign ambassadors in 2016.

So was there any other collusion, any evidence at all?

No, according to no less than James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence. On Meet the Press recently, Clapper and host Chuck Todd had this exchange:

James Clapper: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, “our,” that’s N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.

Chuck Todd: I understand that. But does it exist?

James Clapper: Not to my knowledge.

So even Obama intelligence officials say there is no evidence of Russian collusion. And yet, we are dealing with a full-fledged scandal with Democrats calling for Sessions to resign.

Obama-Russia, on the other hand…

Here’s the real kicker in this whole story. While there is no Russian scandal regarding the Trump campaign, there is a very real one regarding the Obama presidency — one that has been out there like an elephant plopped in the living room. And like the metaphorical elephant, just as ignored.

First, let’s go back to 2012, when Obama told Putin’s most trusted confidant, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in a meeting in Seoul that after the election he would have more flexibility. Their meeting was about nuclear arms negotiations, but the context of this could be broader. Here is the exchange as Obama leaned close to the Russian President:

Obama: “This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Obama then leaned over and patted Medvedev on the arm in a friendly gesture. That’s a lot of bromancing considering the hysteria we are seeing now as Russia has apparently returned to Evil Empire status after the DNC hack. Only media darling Barack Obama could do that with virtually no blowback.

But let’s now look forward from that overtly damning meeting.

Obama won reelection, and in the course of his second term, Russian military forces invaded Crimea. The United States response under Obama was nothing. Then Russia and her surrogates moved into eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian government begged for help, just arms and supplies, no soldiers or direct involvement. The United States response under Obama was nothing.

Then, after U.S. dithering while the Syrian civil war devolved into genocide, Russia intervened on behalf of the Syrian Assad regime — which Obama said had to go. Syria was a Cold War ally of the Soviet Union. And still, the United States response under Obama was nothing

Lastly in major actions, Obama’s State Department under Hillary Clinton sold Putin 20 percent of the United States uranium production — a necessary product in the development of nuclear weapons. Of course, money was rushing into the Clinton Foundation at this same time.

This does not include the unilateral defensive shield giveaways of Obama to Russia in his first term. This all came after Obama’s flexibility whisper to Medvedev.

Trump’s call for an investigation of Obama and Russian connections and dealings has been roundly ridiculed. But as we can see, it’s actually not unreasonable. The challenge for any investigation is that team Obama is generally too savvy to leave any footprints leading back to the former president.

What it’s all about

Given there appears at this point to be little evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and that there is considerable evidence of wink-and-nod collusion between Obama and the Russians, why is this such a huge controversy?

Raw political math.

Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House. Eventually, Republican appointees will be running all of the arms of government. The Democrats have no power. Unless Senate Republicans defect — always a possibility — the Democrats can stop none of Trump’s policies and actions.

That is why they took to the streets so virulently. That’s why they are challenging every jot and tittle in court. And most of all, that is why they are trying to turn the Russian story into a full-blown scandal in hopes of weakening Trump and thereby his presidency.

Their ultimate goal is impeachment — something Democrat leaders have been talking about since before Trump’s inauguration.

Their problem is that barring some new huge revelation — real evidence, not the fake evidence that we’ve seen so far — the Russian “scandal” will fade in all but the most fevered partisan minds.

But the national divide will remain deep.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

You May be Surprised to Know This About Hunting

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) has launched a new campaign called “You may be Surprised to know this about hunting” to connect and even surprise the non-hunting public with stories about improved wildlife populations and the conservation efforts of hunters.

NSSF presents this campaign in a five-part infographic series that will re-introduce hunters and hunting to the public. With most people these days living in cities, suburbs and non-hunting households, many misperceptions of what hunting is and what hunting does, have developed. In response, this campaign works to explain hunting’s connection to the values of today’s socially and environmentally conscious culture. With Earth Day approaching and with people thinking more about the health of our planet, it seems appropriate to kick off with the infographic titled “You may be Surprised to know… hunters aid the environment” In order to explain that hunters and environmentalists alike fight habitat encroachment and help to conserve the health of our ecosystems, NSSF points out that hunters have contributed billions of dollars to wildlife conservation through a sustainable system of wildlife management.

More than a century ago, when wildlife populations were depleted, hunters supported laws that placed excise taxes on purchases of firearms and ammunition and later on fishing, boating and archery equipment. Through these taxes, and also license fees, wildlife agencies received the necessary funds to acquire and maintain land. This land is set aside for the conservation of game and non-game species. Wildlife biologists survey and measure wildlife populations, habitat and food sources to determine how many animals can thrive in certain areas, and then help establish hunting regulations that combat overpopulation and allow time for species growth. This land is also made available for outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, kayaking, camping and more.

The campaign recognizes the locavore movement and the fact long known to hunters that game meat is nutritious and healthful. NSSF highlights venison with double the iron, fewer calories, more protein and better fats than typical meats like lamb, beef, turkey and chicken, making it a truly healthy alternative.

This campaign seeks to demonstrate that if you support the environment, preservation of land, animal conservation and personal nutrition, then you can support hunting.

To view the full selection of infographics and to learn more about this campaign, go to nssf.org/infographics/.

The campaign was created by the NSSF communications team working with intern Daphane Cassidy, an avid hunter and conservationist. Daphane has hunted and volunteered in South Africa, and has represented the U.S. as one of the few American Young Opinion members of The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation at the most recent “Hunting is Conservation” general assembly in Belgium. Participating in worldwide conservation efforts and seeing the benefits of hunting first-hand, Daphane wants to foster positive understanding and relationships between the hunting and non-hunting public.

About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 13,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: Best Shotgun Cases Reviewed for Quality

AHCA was NOT Obamacare Repeal or Replacement by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

The following was contained in an email from Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX District 1)to his constituents:

Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for seven years now. Some of us have proposed bills that had good provisions that would repeal Obamacare. In fact, we voted on a bill that would have been more of a repeal than this one through the House and Senate last year and put it on then-President Obama’s desk for signature. He vetoed the bill. But let’s be clear: the bill last week was NOT a repeal. It was NOT a replacement. It was an Obamacare tweak giving additional power to the federal government in hopes that our Republican Health and Human Services Secretary could make good changes.

Most east Texans are not in favor of giving the federal government MORE power to solve the problem of the federal government having too much power over our health care. If a true history of the rise and demise of the greatest, freest country in history is written, a chapter will detail how decade after decade, good ol’ go along folks kept providing more and more authority to the federal government rather than reining it in. But we still have a window to stem the tide and get back on track.

In closed meetings we were assured, if we will just give my friend Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price this extra power, he can weaken Obamacare substantially, though he could not repeal it administratively. However, no one could give an adequate answer regarding all that additional power in the hands of the next liberal Democrat who will one day take the reins at that behemoth department. The answer is obvious: the next liberal Secretary of HHS would bring back Obamacare with gusto, never to be repealed until it does its job—to hand over full control of your health care decisions to the government, paid for by crushing tax burdens.

There were a myriad of reasons to vote against Speaker Ryan’s rejected bill. It would hit people between the ages of 50-64 with additional costs for premiums and deductibles—in addition to what Obamacare does now. In addition to the original $716 Billion that Obamacare cut from Medicare, this bill was going to hit our seniors yet again.

Most troublesome to me was that in our own Republican meetings we heard from experts who believed that this bill would not bring premiums, deductibles or co-pays down at all and they would most likely be increasing for the next two years, though there was hope costs MIGHT come down 10% three years from now.

From what I hear from my constituents in east Texas, they are really overwhelmed with health insurance and healthcare costs. They need help, and they cannot afford to wait three years. They need help now.

Some of us were exceeding concerned about a new “tax credit” entitlement scheme that did not require proof of citizenship, not even legality, before the U.S. Treasury sends a check.  This entitlement was another transfer of wealth from those who work hard and pay taxes to those not legally present in this country.

The bill also assured that nearly 1% of your hard-earned money would be paid for a Medicare tax to be sucked out of your paycheck that already has a tax of 2.9%, half paid by you and half by your employer.

To help east Texans with the higher premiums this bill would bring, my Freedom Caucus friends and I twice agreed to vote FOR the bad bill, if the Speaker would take out a few of the requirements that were going to increase premiums. We were convinced by knowledgeable analysts that removing these provisions would drive premiums down.

Please understand, we agreed to let the “pre-existing condition” provision in Obamacare remain, though some falsely reported that we refused. We agreed to let children stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26, though I would agree to a higher age or no age limit if you are still living with your parents.

There were numerous other provisions that caused some heartburn, such as giving authority to HHA to create, for the first time ever, FEDERAL high risk insurance pools at the cost of billions of new dollars. We were told not to be alarmed, and that the hope was to eventually devolve that responsibility back to the states. As President Reagan warned, however, the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a new federal program.

Even though I was called an uncompromising “purist,” I was willing to compromise significantly if we could just get the premium costs down for my constituents.

People should also be aware that if the vote had been taken, there would have been as many moderate Republicans voting “No,” which some believe is why the vote was pulled in the first place. Republican leaders would not have been able to lay blame unfairly on conservatives when it was clear within our conference that at least as many moderates were concerned about the bill as conservatives.

The House Freedom Caucus reached an agreement to vote for the bill twice with President Trump, only to have Reince Priebus or Speaker Ryan notify us that such a compromise could not be put in the bill because, they told us, it would risk violating the budget reconciliation rules in the Senate and kill the bill.

Repeatedly we were told by our Republican leadership that the Senate Parliamentarian could not tell us in advance how she would “rule” on whether we could include our requested language in the bill without killing the bill. Late last week, we learned that the reason they could not find out was because they simply had not asked her, as Senator Mike Lee reported.

Yet the whole truth of the matter is that the Parliamentarian never “rules” on anything. She or he may only whisper a recommendation into the ear of the Senate President, either Vice-President Mike Pence or a designee of the Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who sits in the chair with the gavel on the Senate floor. It is the President of the Senate who “rules” on admissibility, not the Parliamentarian. And if 51 Republican Senators support the ruling of the presiding officer, his or her ruling stands untouchable.

This letter offers just a glimpse of the many reasons that the last two weeks played out as they did. It is very disappointing that despite the several compromises that were offered by conservative members, we still were not near fulfillment of our promise to truly and completely repeal Obamacare. That is a promise I did not make lightly, and I will continue the fight to honor my pledge to my constituents and the American people by working aggressively to make sure we get a good bill, get it passed, and signed into law.

Faithfully Yours,

Congressman Louie Gohmert
First District of Texas

RELATED VIDEOS: Gohmert: ‘I Can’t Support a Bill That Does More Damage Than Good’

Gohmert on AHCA: For My Constituents – a 10% Drop Will Not Be a Help

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Freedom Caucus Is an Ally, Not an Enemy in Draining the Swamp

After Trump Threatens to ‘Fight’ Freedom Caucus, Conservatives Vow to ‘Keep Promises’

Three-Pronged Approach to Repeal and Replace Obamacare | whitehouse.gov

SS Commander Heinrich Himmler vowed to ‘stand firmly by the Palestinian people’

In the Jerusalem Post column Never-Before-Seen Document Penned by Nazi Leader Himmler uncovered in Israel Joy Bernard reports:

220px-Al-Husayni1929head

Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In office from 1921–1937. Photo taken in 1929.

The National Library has uncovered a telegram written by Heinrich Himmler and sent to Mufti al-Husseini, in which the Nazi leader expressed his support of the Palestinian struggle against the Jews.

Germany will stand firmly by the Palestinian people in their fight against the “criminal” Balfour Declaration, was the main message conveyed in the telegram that was recently uncovered in the archives of Israel’s National Library. The rare document, which the library assesses dates back to 1943, was written by infamous SS commander Heinrich Himmler and sent to Haj Amin al-Husseini, who served as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem between 1921 to 1937.

The Nazi commander, who was one of the main masterminds behind the ‘Final Solution’ (the Nazi regime’s term for their plan to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews), wrote to the Muslim leader that “the joint recognition of the enemy, and the joint battle against him are what creates the firm allegiance between Germany and freedom-seeking Muslims all over the world.”

Nationalsozialistische Boykott-Posten vor dem Warenhaus Israel in Berlin.

Nationalsozialistische Boykott-Posten vor dem Warenhaus Israel in Berlin.

April 1st will be the 84th anniversary of the 1933 Nazi boycott of Jews in Berlin.

This boycott of Jews is inextricably linked to the current BDS movement against Israel. That link is Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

Heinrich Himmler 18On 20 November, al-Husseini met the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on 28 November. He asked Adolf Hitler for a public declaration that ‘recognized and sympathized with the Arab struggles for independence and liberation, and that would support the elimination of a national Jewish homeland’. Hitler refused to make such a public announcement, saying that it would strengthen the Gaullists against the Vichy France, but asked al-Husseini to ‘to lock …deep in his heart’ the following points, which Christopher Browning summarizes as follows, that:

‘Germany has resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time, direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well’. When Germany had defeated Russia and broken through the Caucasus into the Middle East, it would have no further imperial goals of its own and would support Arab liberation… But Hitler did have one goal. “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power”. (Das deutsche Ziel würde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht lebenden Judentums sein). In short, Jews were not simply to be driven out of the German sphere but would be hunted down and destroyed even beyond it.’

Amin el Husseini (white turban) in Berlin with Nazi officers.

Al-Husseini met with Muslim volunteers, including the Legion of Azerbaijan, at the opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin on 18 December 1942, during the Muslim festival Eid al-Adha.

While in Germany, al-Husseini was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly admonished the guards operating the gas chambers to work more diligently. In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit under al-Husseini’s command parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.

Al-Husseini also helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies.

A separate record of the meeting was made by Fritz Grobba, who until recently had been the German ambassador to Iraq. His version of the crucial words reads “when the hour of Arab liberation comes, Germany has no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews”.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Muslim Brotherhood, Fountain of Islamist Violence – Middle East Quarterly

‘Palestinian mufti convinced Hitler to massacre Europe’s Jews,’ Netanyahu says

Himmler’s diary discovered in Russia

RELATED VIDEO: Faith Goldy — How the EU Made Greece a Muslim Ghetto.