Posts

INTO THE FRAY: The imperative for incentivized Arab migration & the emerging inevitability of the Humanitarian Paradigm

Once inconceivable, the dismantling of UNRWA; the naturalization of stateless Palestinian residents in Arab countries; and the emigration of Palestinians from Judea-Samaria & Gaza are slowly emerging as realistic outcomes

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth – Sherlock Holmes, in “The Sign of the Four”.

Over a quarter-century ago (in 1992) , I warned of the consequences—for both Jew and Arab—if Israel were to evacuate Gaza.

I cautioned: “…the inevitable implications of Israeli withdrawal can be ignored only at great peril to Israelis and Arabs alike”, observing:“…no measure whether the total [Israeli] annexation or total [Israeli] withdrawal can be reconciled with either Israel’s security needs or the welfare of the Arab population there.” Accordingly, I concluded that the only viable and durable policy was the resettlement and rehabilitation of the non-belligerent Gazans elsewhere—and I underscored: “this was not a call for a forcibly imposed racist “transfer” by Israel, but rather…a humane and historically imperative enterprise”.

Confusing economic enhancement with “ethnic cleansing”

Today, after a more than a decade-and-a-half of bloody confrontations, including three large scale military engagements—imposed on Israel to protect its civilian population from predicted assaults—and a fourth appearing increasingly inevitable; with the Gazans awash in untreated sewage, with their sources of drinking water polluted, and with perennial power outages, my predictions appear to have turned out to be lamentably precise.

Perversely, earlier this month I was excoriated for…being proven right—and my fact-based professional assessment as a political scientist that, because of the overtly unremitting enmity of the Gazans towards the Jewish state: “Eventually there will either be Arabs in Gaza or Jews in the Negev. In the long run, there will not be both”, was denounced as a call for ethnic cleansing.

Of course, my detractors conveniently ignore that, time and time again, I have called for providing generous relocation grants to help the hapless non-belligerent Gazans find more prosperous and secure lives for themselves elsewhere, in third party countries, outside the “circle of violence”; and to extricate themselves from the stranglehold of the cruel, corrupt cliques who have led them astray from debacle to disaster for decades.

Confusing an unequivocal call for economic enhancement with one for “ethnic cleansing”, they apparently believe—in their “infinite benevolence and wisdom”—that compelling the Gazans to languish in their current conditions is somehow more humane.

But, more on these wildly unfounded recriminations against me perhaps in a future column.

A tripartite plan

Several years after my 1992 article, I extended the idea of incentivized emigration to the Arab population in Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the “West Bank”) and in 2004 I formulated a tripartite plan (The Humanitarian Paradigm) for the comprehensive resolution—or rather the dissolution of the “Palestinian problem”, which include the following components:

The first was the dismantling of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency), an anomalous UN entity, charged with dealing exclusively with the Palestinian-Arab diaspora (a.k.a. Palestinian “refugees”), displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars with Israel. As I pointed out back then, because of its anomalous definition of who is considered a “refugee” (which extends to the descendants of those originally displaced), and its anomalous mandate (which precludes resettling them anywhere but in the country from which they were displaced), UNRWA is an organization which (a) perpetuates (rather than resolves) the predicament of the stateless Palestinian “refugees”; (b) perpetuates (rather than dissipates) the Palestinian-Arab narrative of “return” to pre-1948 Israel. Accordingly, the continued existence of UNRWA is an insurmountable obstacle to any resolution of the “Palestinian problem”—and hence its dismantling—or at least, radical restructuring—is an imperative precondition for progress toward any such resolution.

The second component was the launch of an international campaign to induce the Arab countries to desist from what is essentially a policy of ethnic discrimination against the Palestinian diaspora, resident in them for decades, and to grant its members citizenship—rather than keeping them in a perpetual state of stateless “refugees”, as a political weapon with which to bludgeon Israel. To date, any such move is prohibited by the mandate of the Arab League.

A tripartite plan (cont.)

The reasoning behind this prohibition was made clear in a 2004 LA Times interview with Hisham Youssef, then-spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, who admitted that Palestinians live “in very bad conditions,” but maintained that the official policy on denying Palestinians citizenship in the counties of decades-long residence is meant “to preserve their Palestinian identity.” According to Youssef: “If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won’t be any reason for them to return to Palestine.”

The significance of this is clear.

The nations comprising the Arab League are prepared to subordinate the improvement of the dire humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians, resident throughout the Arab world, to the political goal of preserving the “Right of Return” — i.e. using them as a pawn to effect the elimination of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.

It is to the annulment of this pernicious policy that international pressure must be directed.

The thirdand arguably the most controversial—element was to offer the non-belligerent Arab residents in Judea-Samaria generous relocation grants to provide them and their families an opportunity to seek a better and safer future in third-party host-nations, than that which almost inevitably awaits them—if they stay where they are.

Atomization & de-politicization

To overcome potential resistance to accepting the relocation/rehabilitation grants, I stipulated two elements regarding the manner in which the funding activity is to be carried out: (a) the atomization of implementation of the grant payments; (b) the de-politicization of the context in which they are made.

(a) Atomization: This implies that the envisaged compensation will be offered directly to individual family heads/breadwinners—not through any Arab collective (whether state or sub-state organization), who may have a vested interest in impeding its payment. Accordingly, no agreement with any Arab collective is required for the implementation of payment to the recipients—merely the accumulated consent of fate-stricken individuals, striving to improve their lot.

(b) De-politicization: The incentivized emigration initiative is not cast as a political endeavor but rather a humanitarian one. This reflects a sober recognition that, after decades of effort, involving the expenditure of huge political capital and economic resources, there is no political formula for the resolution of the conflict. Accordingly, efforts should be channeled into dissipating the humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs, which the insoluble political impasse has precipitated.

These two elements–direct payments to individuals and the downplaying of the political nature of the relocation/rehabilitation grants and the emphasis on the humanitarian component are designed to circumvent—or at least attenuate—any claims that acceptance of the funds would in some way entail an affront to—real or imagined—national sentiments.

Once inconceivable, now slowly materializing

For many years, advocating these three elements—the dismantling (or at least the radical restructuring) of UNRWA; the naturalization of the Palestinian diaspora resident in Arab countries as citizens; and the emigration of Palestinian-Arabs from Judea-Samaria and Gaza—seemed hopelessly unrealistic.

However today, all three are slowly but inexorably materializing before our eyes in a manner that would have appeared inconceivable only a few years ago.

Of course, a major catalyst for this nascent metamorphosis has been the Trump administration.

The US administration has—despite hitherto unexplained and inexplicable Israeli reluctance—exposed the fraudulent fiasco of UNRWA. As its erstwhile biggest benefactor, the US has retracted all funding from the organization. But more importantly, it has focused a glaring spotlight on the myth of the “Palestinian refugees” and the spectacularly inflated number of such alleged “refugees”—which even include those who have long acquired citizenship of some other country!

This salutary US initiative has the potential to rescind the recognition of the bulk of the Palestinian diaspora as “refugees”. Thus, even if they continue to receive international aid to help ameliorate their humanitarian situation, this will not be as potential returnees to their alleged homeland in Israel.

Once the Palestinian diaspora is stripped of its fraudulent refugee status, the door is then open to settling them in third party countries other than their claimed homeland,  and to their naturalization as citizens of these counties.

Naturalization of Palestinian diaspora in countries of residence

In this regard, the Trump administration has reportedly undertaken an important initiative–see here; here; and here. According to these reports, President Trump has informed several Arab countries that, at the start of 2019, he will disclose a citizenship plan for Palestinian refugees living in those countries. 

Significantly, Palestinian sources told the news outlet: “Trump informed several Arab countries that the plan will include Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.” According to these sources: “the big surprise will be that these countries have already agreed to naturalize Palestinian refugees.” Moreover, it was reported that senior US officials are expected to seriously raise an American initiative with several Arab countries—including stipulation of the tools to implement it, the number of refugees, the required expenses, and the logistics demanded from hosting countries for supervising the process of “naturalization of refugees”.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of such an initiative, which coincides precisely with the second element in the foregoing tripartite plan. For, it has the potential to remove the ominous overhang of a five million strong (and counting) Palestinian diaspora that threatens to inundate the Jewish state and nullify its ability to function as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

As such, the Israeli government and all pro-Zionist entities should strive to ensure its implementation.

Emigration: The preferred option of the Palestinians?

As for the third element of the tripartite plan, emigration of the Palestinian population to third-party countries, there is rapidly accumulating evidence that emigration is emerging as an increasingly sought-after option. Indeed, earlier this month, Israeli mainstream media highlighted the desire to leave Gaza in order to seek a better life elsewhere. For example, the popular website, YNetnews, ran a piece entitled, Gaza suffers from brain drain as young professionals look for better life, with the Hebrew version appearing a few days previously, headlined The flight from Gaza: What Hamas is trying to conceal from the media. Likewise, the KAN Channel ran a program reporting very similar realities (January 13).

These items come on the heels of a spate of previous articles that describe the widespread clamor among Gazans to find alternative places of abode—see for example For Young Palestinians, There’s Only One Way Out of Gaza (Haaretz) ; Thousands Abandon Blockaded Strip as Egypt Opens Crossing  (Alaraby); As Egypt Opens Gaza Border, A Harsh Reality is Laid Bare (Haaretz); and How Turkey Has Become the Palestinian Promised Land (Haaretz).

The Ynetnews piece describes the fervor to leave: “Leaving Gaza is expensive, particularly for the residents of the impoverished coastal enclave…The demand is high, and the waiting list to leave is long…Those wishing to cut short their wait must pay for a place on a special list, which is run by a private firm in Gaza…The price for a place on this special list is $1,500—a fortune for the average resident of Gaza…”

It would appear then, that the only thing preventing a mass exodus from Gaza is…money. Which is precisely what the tripartite plan proposes providing.

Let their people go: A slogan for April’s elections?

There is, of course, little reason to believe that, if Israel were to leave Judea-Samaria, what happened in Gaza would not happen there. After all, the preponderance of professional opinion appears to hold that, if the IDF were to evacuate Judea-Samaria, it would likely fall to elements very similar to those that seized power in Gaza—and the area would quickly be transformed into a mega-Gaza-like entity, on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv—with all the attendant perils that would entail.

Sadly however, despite its clear strategic and ethical advantages over other policy proposals, few in the Israeli political system have dared to adopt incentivized emigration as part of their platform. The notable exception is Moshe Feiglin and his Zehut party –and, to certain extent, Bezalel Smotrich, the newly elected head of the National Union faction in the Jewish Home Party, previously headed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett.

It is, however, time for the idea of incentivized emigration to be embraced by the mainstream parties as the only viable policy paradigm that can ensure the continued survival of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. It is time for the mainstream to adopt an election slogan that sounds a clarion call to “Let their people go”.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Cole Keister on Unsplash.

Nationalism Versus Globalism

Nationalism versus Globalism. Let’s explore the basics of Nationalism versus Globalism, as Clinton can easily be defined as a Globalist and Trump can easily be defined as a Nationalist. So an important question to ask is where will the Globalist agenda lead us vs. the Nationalist agenda? Please listen to a brief podcast commentary relating to this post at the bottom of the page.

Nationalism Versus Globalism

Nationalist / Trump

Sovereign nation. Protecting borders, language and culture. A restoration of the once great U.S. Constitutional Republic. We went from a Constitutional Republic (“If you can keep it” – Ben Franklin), to a Democratic System, to an Oligarchy on the verge of complete collapse into a controlled police state via Global Governance. When you look at the policies of Donald Trump you will see that he understands the importance of global trade and global alliances, however with his “America First” approach as outlined so well in his foreign policy speech, you can see that Donald Trump if elected, will strive to return the U.S. back to its roots. Easier said than done but never under estimate what one man can do and Donald Trump has and will continue to have increasing global support in my opinion. Yes he is up against the deeply rooted ruling elites NWO, I get it. But we have a choice, Clinton the Globalists or Trump the Nationalist. No Trump-No Hope.

Globalist / Clinton

One world government. One world justice system. One world military and one world currency. Globalism is the more user friendly term for New World Order since NWO has gotten its rightly deserved bad reputation over the decades. So what is Globalism? Well one definition from Oxford defines Globalism as “The process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale”. Organizations and treaties such as NAFTA, the United Nations, the WTO, The TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), Agenda 21, UN Agenda 2030 and scores of others are all part of Globalization. I covered a much more in depth analysis of this in a VI part series of posts. Here is part VI and at the end of each post you can click to the preceding posts on the subject. You see Globalism goes hand in hand with Global Governance which aims to control every single aspect of your life and have each and every one of us more and more dependent upon the government for our very survival. Learn more by reading this post as well as Global Governance By Design. Clinton is a Globalist and her agenda aligns completely with that of the NWO / Globalism agenda. With a Hillary Clinton election there is no turning back. Not for a very, very long time if ever.

The Most Important Book Of 2016

What One Man Can Do” the new Donald Trump book to help swing voters. America and freedom itself is at a crossroads. Civilization as we know it is about to change. This is the most important book of 2016. This is America’s last stand as the world awaits, No Trump-No Hope. Learn more by visiting this page. Congrats! You’ve made it this far you’re and engaged reader. What are your thoughts? Share your comments here on this blog post. I would like to hear from you. Also share this post on your social media accounts.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Google, Facebook and Twitter sued for aiding and abetting ISIS

Good. I hope they win a massive settlement and drive them all out of business. Each one has been cutting off its platform to foes of jihad terror. In February, referrals from Facebook and Twitter to Jihad Watch dropped by 90% and have never recovered. Google has changed its search results so that when one searches for topics related to Islam and jihad, only results whitewashing Islam’s links to terrorism come up. Meanwhile jihad terrorists, as is clear from this case, have free rein. These monopolies need to be broken up, and the sooner the better, as they are actively working against the freedom of speech.

“Daughters of California man killed in Barcelona terror attack sue Google, Facebook and Twitter ‘for aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources’ to ISIS,” by Julian Robinson, MailOnline, October 6, 2017:

The family of a California man killed in the terror attack in Barcelona is suing Facebook, Twitter and Google for their part in ‘aiding, abetting and knowingly providing support and resources’ to ISIS, it has emerged

Jared Tucker, from Walnut Creek, was one of 13 people who died when a van mowed down pedestrians on the Spanish city’s packed La Rambla on August 17.

The three daughters of the 42-year-old, who was celebrating his one year anniversary with wife Heidi Nunes-Tucker in Barcelona when he was killed, have now filed a lawsuit against the tech giants.

According to the New York Post, the complaint claims the firms have ‘for years knowingly and recklessly provided the terrorist group ISIS with accounts to use its social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.’…

RELATED ARTICLES:

LEAK: Google Employees Defend Discrimination Against Conservatives

UK: Viewers of “jihadi websites” or “far-right propaganda” to get 15 years in prison

Eyewitness of Barcelona jihad attack: No priest came to comfort wounded, but Cardinal declared all religions peaceful

Just A Note On Macron-Management by Hugh Fitzgerald

It has just been revealed that Emmanuel Macron, President of France, has in the first three months of his presidency spent more than $30,000 on make-up services. That would be a remarkable sum for anyone to spend, but what makes it even more remarkable is that Macron is only 39, the youngest French President ever, and therefore, one might assume, someone who would be least in need of such services, and certainly not to this expensive extent.

Even before this embarrassment, Macron had been stumbling. Just a few months ago, a political neophyte, he had defeated Marine Le Pen for the French presidency with an astonishing 65% of the vote. Now his popularity has plummeted to 36%. What explains this colossal drop? Partly it has to do with Macron’s authoritarian personality, revealed only after the election, and most evident in the curt way he treated the army chief of staff, who objected to defense cuts, leading to the general’s resignation. Partly it has to do with his proposed cut of 10 billion euros to spending on research, health, and housing, and on his controversial proposal to revamp the labor laws, making it easier for employers both to hire and fire.

But Macron’s rather cavalier views on Islam may also have played a part in his drop in popularity. During the election, he said little on the subject of terrorism. It was enough for voters that he was not Marine le Pen, who had been endlessly maligned in the media, labelled an “Islamophobe’ for expressing alarm both about what the Islamic texts and teachings inculcate, and about the observable attitudes and behavior of too many Muslims. But the little that candidate Macron did say on Islamic terrorism was disturbing. “We have a share of responsibility,” he warned, “because this totalitarianism feeds on the mistrust that we have allowed to settle in society…. and if tomorrow we do not take care, it will divide them [the Muslims] from us even more.”

So for Macron, it was “we” — the French — who must acknowledge responsibility for Muslim terrorism, because it is our mistrust of Muslims that causes them, in turn, to subscribe to Islamic “totalitarianism.” We must force ourselves not to “mistrust” them. But that’s an attitude that cannot be commanded. How should the French react, after each attack by Muslim terrorists, at Charlie Hebdo, at the kosher market, along the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, at the Bataclan nightclub? How should they react as each thwarted attack — along the Champs-Elysees, outside the Louvre, in front of Notre Dame, beside the Eiffel Tower — is announced? With so much murder and so much mayhem, how can they not mistrust the Muslims in their midst? Macron followed up this impossible demand with a sentiment worthy of Pope Francis: To lessen this “mistrust,” Macron said, French society “must change and be more open.” More open to what? To Islam, of course.

On April 20, 2017, during the campaign, after an Islamic terrorist killed one police officer and wounded two others in Paris, Macron said: “I am not going to invent an anti-terrorist program in one night.” He had been a government official during two years of continuous terrorist attacks on French territory. Didn’t the public have a right to assume that he would have given some thought to anti-terrorist measures to be taken? Instead of insinuating that he was being unfairly asked to suddenly come up with “an anti-terrorist program in one night” (he was being asked no such thing), shouldn’t he at least have shown the French people that he had been thinking carefully about how to deal with the terrorist threat, and here were some of his thoughts?

Also disturbing was the revelation, during the campaign, that there were some doubtful Muslims on his staff. One of these was Mohamed Saou, who was discovered to have promoted on Twitter the Islamic statement: “I am not Charlie.” Sensing a potential scandal, Macron felt compelled to dismiss Saou on April 6. But on April 14, on a Muslim French radio station, Macron was caught on a “hot mic” describing Saou as a “good guy, a very good guy.” Is a Muslim who insists he would never express solidarity with the murdered cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo a “very good guy”?

On April 28, Mohamed Louizi, author of the book Why I Quit the Muslim Brotherhood, released a detailed article on Facebook that accused Macron of being a “hostage of the Islamist vote.” Republished by Dreuz, a Christian anti-jihad website, Louizi’s article gave names and dates, and explained how Macron’s political movement had been infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood militants. Since Macron has not refuted the article’s facts, we can assume it is correct. And if it is correct, then we have to worry about Macron, and it’s he who, with the election behind him, has to convince the French public that he recognizes the meaning, and menace, of Islam. It’s the only way to calm their fears.

Since being elected, Macron has announced the formation of a task force on terrorism, consisting of around 20 people, chiefly intelligence analysts, who will supervise and oversee all counter-terrorism efforts directly under the president’s authority. But this, while laudable, is not nearly enough; he has to express a different vision of France, one that has no room for a supposed “amalgame” with Islam.

Is Macron an open promoter of Islam in France? It is more politically correct to say that he is a “globalist” and an “open promoter of multiculturalism.” He does not want to think of France as too French. For he wants to deny the French that heightened sense of their own country, with a specific history, art, literature, politics — a French civilization — of which they have always been proud. Instead, he thinks of Islam as part of this new, multicultural amalgam that he claims France has become. When he visited London last February 22, he told an audience of expatriates that “French culture does not exist, there is a culture in France and it is diverse.” The same day he dared to dismiss one of the greatest sources of French national pride: “French art? I never met it.” Clouet, Chardin, Manet, Monet, Cezanne, Gauguin, Derain, Bonnard, Matisse, then, are apparently not French artists, for there is no such thing as “French art.”

If France is for Macron nothing but a cultural amalgam or olla-podrida, and there is no longer anything specifically French about that county’s civilization, then the Muslims in France are just as “French” with their Muslim culture as the French are with French culture. But the Muslims do not accept the idea of an “amalgam.” They do not celebrate multiculturalism. They want not a mixture of cultures, but for Islam to dominate. Macron fails to realize that it has not been the French who rejected the Muslims; France has made great efforts, teaching its language and its culture to many different kinds of immigrants. The country has been open and welcoming to these migrants and tried, with great success in most cases, to integrate them. That program of integration worked with immigrants from Portugal in the 1950s, from the French Antilles in the 1960s and, in the half-century since, with immigrants from all over: Eastern Europeans, Hindus from India, Filipinos, Brazilians, Andean Indians, Vietnamese Buddhists, and sub-Saharan African Christians. Only the Muslims have failed to integrate, that is have failed to willingly accept the laws, customs, understandings of the Infidel French. In French schools, it is Muslim students who refuse to study topics they deem anti-Muslim, as the Crusades or the history of the French monarchy, or as likely to encourage sympathy for the Jews, as the Holocaust. Meanwhile, Muslims press for ever greater attention being given in those same schools to the study of Islam.

In May, Macron visited West Africa, where French troops are engaged in a campaign against Islamic militants in Mali, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mauritania, and where he promised to be “uncompromising” in the fight against the Jihadists. One wonders why he can be so forthright and clear-headed about the Islamic threat in West Africa, and at the same time fail to recognize the threat within metropolitan France from those millions of Muslims whose religion teaches them to hate the Kuffar, who are commanded to wage Jihad until the entire world is subjugated, and Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. The fact that not all Muslims follow the Qur’an’s commands is slight consolation, for that may reflect not moral but prudential considerations. The time may not be ripe, as Muslims still constitute less than 10% of the French population. But the duty does not dissipate, and Muslims are patient. Macron recognizes a Muslim menace, but so far only in a not-in-my-backyard, limited-to-west-africa sort of way.

At this point, Macron has little to lose in taking a strong anti-Islam position. Everything that has happened since he won the election on May 7 has only increased alarm in France and in Europe. Just two weeks after he was elected, there was a major attack at a concert in Manchester. Other attacks have taken place since then in France, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Finland. Jihadist attacks include the Barcelona van attack, a car attack on French police, a car attack on police in Belgium, a knife attack in Paris, a knife attack in Hamburg, an attempted bombing in Brussels, a car attack in Paris, a knife attack in London, a knife attack attempt in the United Kingdom, a knife attack in London, a hammer attack in France, a vehicle attack with knives at London Bridge, a machete attack attempt outside Buckingham Palace, a machete attack in Brussels, a second machete attack attempt in Brussels, a stabbing attack in Turku, a machete attack outside Buckingham Palace…and these are only the ones that come instantly to mind.

President Macron is surely aware of all this. It’s time he started to talk about Jihadists in Paris the way he talked about them in West Africa. He needs to stop painting his face, and start telling his own people, the French people, that this entirely factitious ‘“amalgame” of Muslim and French culture does not exist, that French civilization — its politics, its art, its literature, its music, its philosophy — is eminently worth defending, and that if Muslims have their way, France would end up looking, at best, like one of the dreary North African countries. What Macron needs most is not all that expensive makeup and the services of some pretty esthetician, but a makeover in his understanding, so that he will sound the way in these parlous times he ought to sound, which is to say, a lot less like Tariq Ramadan, and a lot more like Charles De Gaulle.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Netanyahu tells UN top dog that Iran is building missile sites in Syria, Lebanon to strike Israel

Gorka: McMaster “sees the threat of Islam through an Obama administration lens”

Actor Clooney flees Europe: Do as I say, not as I do!

These super rich Lefty celebrities have no shame!

In 2016, Clooney and his wife praise German Chancellor Angela Merkel [pictured right] for her welcome to the migrant invaders (not using those words of course!). Italy as an escape? Maybe not so much!

George Clooney is reportedly moving his young family to his Los Angeles mansion which is deemed safer (from Jihadists) than is his property in the UK or his Italian get-away mansion at Lake Como.

From Breitbart (hat tip: Brenda):

Report: Open Borders Advocate George Clooney Moving Family Back to Trump’s America for ‘Security Reasons’

Actor and immigration activist George Clooney will move to Los Angeles with his wife Amal and newborn twins Ella and Alexander due to security concerns at his England estate, according to a report.

Life & Style magazine reported last week that the 56-year-old Oscar-winner will move his newly-expanded family to his mansion in Studio City, California, after deeming his 17th century mansion in Sonning, England to be not sufficiently safe for them.

“As soon as Amal found out she was pregnant, he hired former Secret Service agents to assess all his properties and make recommendations for improvement,” an unnamed Clooney “insider” told the magazine. “His mansion in Studio City [Calif.] was deemed the most secure, and it’s within minutes of an LAPD station.”

[….]

In May, British government officials disclosed that 23,000 known jihadi terrorists are believed to be residing in Britain, far more than the 3,000 that had initially been reported.

[….]

In February of last year, the actor met privately with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and praised the German leader’s acceptance of refugees from Syria and other countries. The same month, Clooney told Sky News in an interview that the United States is not doing “enough” to help Syrian refugees, and that 10,000 refugees per year was too low a figure to be admitting into the country.

[….]

In July of last year, a makeshift refugee camp was established in Lake Como after the Swiss government decided to close its southern border with Italy. Dozens of refugees arrived from African and Asian countries were housed in tents close to the Clooneys’ home, with a local tour guide telling the Daily Mail that the refugee camps were a “big problem because of the huge numbers [of refugees] who are arriving all the time.”

More here.

Bill Gates woke up and smelled the coffee, any chance Clooney will get it?

This post is filed in my ‘Laugh of the day’ category.  I have another good laugh for later (or tomorrow), so come on back!

Click here for my complete archive on the Invasion of Europe.

Kicking the croissant down the road … it is demographic conquest stupid!

Invasion of Europe news…

The first thing I thought of when I heard the news that Marine Le Pen had lost to the globalist Emmanuel Macron was Mark Steyn’s predictions in America Alone.  If you have never read it, you must.  And while you are at it don’t skip The Camp of Saints ((over 40 years old!) or, the very dark (nothing “funny” about it) novel Submission.

Ha! It seems that one can’t thoroughly discuss the issue of Islamic demographic dominance outside of a novel (well, except for ‘America Alone’).

Here are a few snips from Steyn on the results of the French election on Saturday:

The French have voted to postpone their rendezvous with destiny. But kicking the croissant down the road means another half-decade of demographic transformation that lengthens the odds against ever winning the numbers to halt it.

[….]

…with the arrival of President Macron in the charmed circle, the leaders of Europe’s biggest economies and of all the European members of the G7 are childless: Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Theresa May, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, and now France’s Macron.

This would have been not just statistically improbable but all but impossible for most of human history. Whatever Euro-politics is about, it’s not, as Bill Clinton was wont to say, the future of all our children. Indeed, of the six founding members of the European Union – France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg – five are led by childless prime ministers: joining Merkel, Gentiloni and Macron at the no-need-for-daycare Euro-summit are the Dutch PM Mark Rutte and the Luxemburger Xavier Bettel. Mark Rutte is single and childless. Xavier Bettel of Lux is married, but gay and, hélas, for the moment without progeny.

Indeed, it would have been a clean sweep of all six of the EU’s founding members – a non-procreative sextet – had not Charles Michel succeeded another gay PM, Belgium’s Elio di Rupo. While M di Rupo also remains unblessed by any visit from the Euro-Stork, M Michel has managed to sire a brace of moppets. So that’s two kids between six prime ministers.

france gone darkRead the whole thing hereThen tell all of your young conservative friends to HAVE BABIES!

Our complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ is here.

If you need convincing, in addition to ‘America Alone,’ put these books on your reading list (including my little booklet!):

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Ignoring history: 1,300 years brings us to the Islamization of Minnesota

Macron Bests Le Pen in French Presidential Runoff Election: Don’t expect the populist tide to recede, however

Trump immigration Executive Order to go to appeals court in Virginia

Another 50,000 wannabe migrants to U.S. learned if they won the lottery to America this week

If your city has low income housing (or a greedy meatpacker nearby!) you could get refugees

RELATED VIDEO: #MacronLeaks: Secret Islamization Plans.

French Presidential Campaign: Partie 5

Part 1 can be found here – click.

Part 2 can be found here – click.

Part 3 can be found here – click.

Part 4 can be found here – click.

10:44 AM: I feel like my country, the country I’ve lived in for over 44 years, is a patient in intensive care. Tubes and catheters, control panels, IT graphs, pulsing images, flashing lights. We’re waiting with sinking hearts for the specialist to come in and interpret the lab results. Something ineluctable is about to be revealed. But what?

I’m going to the outdoor market. When I get back, maybe I’ll run the vacuum cleaner. To keep my mind fresh. Plans for my visit to Israel in May are shaping up. Then 2 weeks in June in the US. A week in the South of France after that. Life goes on. I’ll walk around and take a look at the polling places. All the candidate posters have been defaced by anarchists and other heavy metal destroy protestors.

3 PM: The hawk is out, a merciless cold wind is slamming our hopes for springtime. The sun is hot and bright. It’s not enough. Anarchists and other looking-for-a-fight protesters at yesterday’s Social 1st Round left their filthy messages all up and down boulevard Beaumarchais. Last night they threw bottles and other hard edged objects at the police. Their graffiti looks like blood, talk about broad brush, they obscure whatever they touch. WAR ON THE RICH here POLICE ASSASSINS there. Can’t someone get them out of our face, out of our hair, out of the national conversation? Their causes are rotten. They grab at anything as an excuse for slopping signs and breaking windows, attacking the police and whatever else they get their hands on.

I’m on edge. Up to now, everything was possible, you grasped it with your rational mind. Now it is happening. People are voting. The verdict will soon fall.

I’m sharply impatient and here they come again with Marine Le Pen. A friend tells me about an article in the Jerusalem Post, CNN is in her stomping grounds at Bénin-Haumont and President Trump thinks she’s the best on frontiers and all that sovereignty, and the only one that’s dealing with that pesky problem. C’mon guys, either find out what’s really happening here or comment on another poker game.  You want Marine le Pen for president? Help yourself. But leave us out of it

Oh they’re so sure she’ll get to the 2nd round. I just hope they’re wrong. I’m so tired of her misrepresentation.

I have to leave for the concert.

8:17 PM: The concert lasted longer than I expected. My friend Isaac Bensimhon brought to life Jean Ferhat and it brought tears to my eyes, the beauty of song, the commitment to social justice, the innocence (he was a Communist fellow traveler) and the reality of the Soviet Union. Tears for the idealism of our youth, with nothing but hollow bushel barrels to harvest their hopes.

Authorities fear an outbreak of violence after the election results are announced.

A helicopter turns in the cold skies.

I meant to write hour by hour but I kept bumping into friends and neighbors, heard fantastic theories of what was about to happen.

I sensed it, didn’t I? The smug pollsters. Oh my friend, our pollsters are not like your pollsters. Ours are French sharpshooters. Haven’t they been telling us for weeks and months that it would be Le Pen and Macron? Didn’t they make fun of us for seeking other sources that would comfort are vain hopes.

la pen macron

Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron

OK, it’s Macron and le Pen. A few minutes ago Fillon squeezed a few centimeter ahead of Mélenchon. Merci, c’est gentil.

Le Pen and Macron. Are you happy, foreign media and friends from everywhere that have been promising Marine would make it to the 2nd round? And win.  Forgive me, I had a higher evaluation of French citizens.

Excuse me, for the moment I’ve lost interest in this story.

Now I have to go and endure their victory speeches.

Merci, François Hollande, you realized the dream of the Left: run against the Front National instead of the parliamentary Right. And win.

What a loss!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

‘France First’ – Marine Le Pen Hits out at Islamism and Financial Globalisation

Front-runner for French presidency against arresting and deporting “radical Islamists”

The trouble with Emmanuel Macron

First Round of French Presidential Election a Blow to the Establishment

Le Pen vs. Macron in French Presidential Run-Off

Europe’s Rising Islam-Based Political Parties

Paris: Knife-wielding Muslim tackled by police at Eurostar terminal

French ex-Muslim lunges at Paris mayor: “There is no more French, there is nothing anymore!” “I was a Muslim, I’m not anymore. I’m ashamed.”

Since President Trump took office over 2,400 refugees from travel-ban countries entered U.S.

Pew Research has done a handy little summary of where we stand with refugees admitted this fiscal year, but most importantly they made a useful graph of how many entered from travel-restricted countries since the first week of December, through Trump’s inauguration and up to last Friday.

There is nothing we haven’t already been talking about as we reported also from Wrapsnet over recent weeks and months, but they put it in a neat little package for your review on the eve of the 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement.

Pew Research Center:

A total of 2,466 refugees from six countries under new travel restrictions – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – have resettled in the United States since Donald Trump became president, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department data. The number of refugees from the six travel-restricted countries represents 32% of all refugees who have entered the U.S. since Trump took office.

Pew continues….

Including refugees from countries with no travel restrictions, a total of 7,594 refugees have entered the U.S. during Trump’s first seven weeks in office (Jan. 21 to March 10). Of these refugees, 3,410 are Muslims (45%) and 3,292 are Christians (43%), with other religions or the religiously unaffiliated accounting for the rest.

So far in fiscal 2017 (which began Oct. 1, 2016), refugees who hold citizenship from the six restricted countries have accounted for more than a third (34%) of 37,716 refugee admissions.

More here.

President Trump has set the ceiling for the entire 2017 fiscal year at 50,000, a number we explained here is not that low!

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

EndNote: It is amusing to me to see research/articles like this because for years and years (I started writing RRW in 2007) no one paid any attention to the numbers, religions and ethnicities of refugees entering the US. It is nice to see so many news outlets educating the public!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Flow chart for refugee admissions shows where Trump team could downsize program with funding cuts

California judge seeks to prevent immigration arrests inside state courts

Horowitz: Where is Congress? Why are they not helping Trump on immigration?

Middle East experts: Kurdish safe zones could thwart Iranian threat to Israel

One report: Trump Department of State to cut funding to UN by 50%

Will Geert Wilders’ anti-Islam, anti-immigration and NExit party win on March 5th?

geert wilders party logo

Geert Wilders

The general election in the Netherlands is less than five weeks away on March 15th, 2017. Geert Wilders’ political polls show his Freedom Party (PVV) has a lead in weekly political polls of 30+ seats over the Liberal party’s (VVD) 26 seats of the current ruling coalition of current PM Mark Rutte in the Hague Parliament, the tweeder kamer, with 150 seats.

Wilders broke with the VVD in 2004 to form his anti-Islam, anti-immigration and NExit party after the assassination in 2002 of Rotterdam Mayor Pym Fortuyn and the November 2004 murder by a Dutch Moroccan Muslim extremist Mohamned Bouyeri of Dutch Film maker Theo Van Gogh for producing a short film, “Submission” scripted with ex pat Somali Dutch VVD politician, now an American, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, on the streets of Amsterdam.

Wilders won an acquittal in 2011 in an Amsterdam district court case on charges of hate speech for his anti Political Islam stands. In 2016 he was convicted without penalty in a show trial brought by Hague prosecutors because of his 2014 local campaign remarks about “fewer and fewer” Moroccans, a reference to the Muslim minority involved with crimes in Holland.

If Wilders can spurt to win the vicinity of 40 seats in the general election a likely impasse could occur about formation of a new ruling coalition with Wilders at the head as PM. That is reflected in the twitter war between Wilders and current PM Mark Rutte. The latter contends that the VVD has ZERO chance of joining such a coalition headed by Wilders. Wilders contends that Rutte can’t dismiss upwards of 2 to 2.5 million Dutch voters that the Freedom Party could receive in the March 15th general elections.

Wilders , unlike Trump believes that taking back border controls rather than building walls will stop the refugee migrant influx in Holland.

60 000 refugees and migrants poured in during the current crisis, forcing the country to open up closed prisons to house them temporarily.

Go Geert Go!!

Anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders said on Sunday (12 February) that promises by other parties not to work with him would be quickly forgotten if, as exp
TOPBUZZ.COM

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

“It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.”

The Obama administration will leave behind a long, long record of dishonesty and betrayal.

“White House On Defense After Being Exposed as Architect of Anti-Israel U.N. Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 29, 2016:

Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Monday that Vice President Joe Biden phoned Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the resolution. While the White House issued multiple denials, further reports from Israel and Europe have confirmed a phone call between the leaders did in fact take place.

It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.

White House National Security Council official Ned Price described such a meeting as a “total fabrication,” despite public documents highlighting the powwow between Kerry and Erekat.

One senior Obama administration official who spoke to the Free Beacon said the White House did not help draft the resolution, as Israeli leaders have suggested in recent days.

“We’ve been entirely clear that this was an Egyptian resolution,” said the official, explaining that the effort did not originate with the White House. Reports of a meeting between Kerry, Erekat, and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice are not correct, the official said.

However, these claims have been disputed by multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record about the situation.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

As with the meeting between Kerry and Erekat, the phone call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been confirmed multiple times by a plethora of sources in the United States, Israel, and Europe following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Obama administration initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

The administration has not yet addressed the discrepancy between its own narrative and that being revealed in the press….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guinea President: “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Islam is a religion of peace.”

Spain: Snipers and armed police to guard public areas amid jihad terror fears

From the Sea to the River — Rise of a ‘One State Solution’ in the Middle East

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam, “Just as a matter of empirical reality, the two-state solution is dead. That’s about the only thing John Kerry came close to getting right yesterday.”

Michael Oren in a Newsweek article titled “With New Resolution, the U.N. Drives Stake Into Israeli-Palestinian Peace Hopes” reports:

When the U.N. Security Council passed its resolution Friday denouncing Israel’s presence in territories it captured in 1967, many ambassadors broke out in applause. The decision, they believed, would deter Israel from further settlement building, advance the peace process, and help achieve a two-state solution. The Middle East and the world would benefit. But, sadly, those expectations—and the ovation they sparked—were misplaced.

[ … ]

The goal of the initiators of the resolution was not to achieve a better two-state solution, I believe, but to deny Israel the right to defend itself and, ultimately, the right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state. [Emphasis added]

On December 28th, 2016 John Kerry gave his final speech as the outgoing U.S. Secretary of State.  Kerry’s “Remarks on Middle East Peace” lasted 1 hour and 13 minutes. Kerry stated:

Today, there are a number – there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.

There is a great lie in Secretary Kerry’s statement.

Israel has, since its inception, had Jews and Arabs living peacefully together. Moreover, Arab Israelis have realized “their vast potential” achieving economic, political and social gains by living in the Jewish state of Israel. In April of 2016 Israel promoted an Arab police officer to the position of Deputy Commissioner, the highest rank obtained by a Muslim in the nation.

According to a CNN report Deputy Commissioner Jamal Hakrush, “[W]ill be in charge of improving the policing services in Arab neighborhoods and towns in Israel. He will be responsible for establishing police stations in new Arab towns while strengthening the existing stations.” Why increase Arab police presence in Arab towns? To protect Arabs from those radical Islamic terrorists who wish them and others harm. That is called self-determination. Arabs empowered to protect Arab interests and by doing so protecting the interests of Israelis.

Does this not prove Israel is both Jewish and democratic?

Kerry stated, “Let me emphasize, this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict. Of course they are not. Nor can you say that if the settlements were suddenly removed, you’d have peace.”

Kerry knew that settlements were not the problem to reaching a peace agreement. The problem is when one side, the Palestinians, refuses to negotiate a peace agreement. They have refused to come to the negotiating table because they want Israel wiped from the map. How do we know this? By their slogan from the “river to the sea.”

So what can a President-elect Trump do to create a lasting peace in the Middle East?

Certainly not doing the same thing his predecessors have done for the past 40 years and expecting different results. He must reverse course by creating a new mantra and the new U.S. policy of “from the sea to the river.” President-elect Trump must not just change course but reverse the direction of U.S. politcy in the Middle East.

Doing the same things his predecessors did and expecting different results is pure insanity.

During his speech Kerry asked, “Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at stake.”

The answer can only be a one state solution. Only with a united Israeli state from the sea to the river can the dream of a democratic Jewish state living in peace and security with its Arab neighbors become reality.

Listen to Ambassador Bolton’s full interview on Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM hosed by Raheem Kassam:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The End of Palestine: Israel Has the Opportunity to Reclaim its Nation

A Palestinian state — good for the U.S.?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: A Jew free Palestinian state.

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

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

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

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

Kerry laments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES: 

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

Security Council Resolution 2334: The Legal Significance

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

Obama and Kerry Seek to Make Israel Indefensible

Kerry Takes a Parting Shot at Israel in Middle East Speech

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

Obama Sets Stage for Jerusalem’s Destruction and Biblical Judgment on U.S.

President Obama let an anti-settlement resolution pass the UN Security Council, breaking his word to Israel and abandoning our best ally in the Middle East to those who hate Israel–maybe setting the stage for a Biblical prophecy written in Zechariah 14.

“The day of the Lord comes…all nations [United Nations?] will gather against Jerusalem to battle. The city shall be taken and the houses rifled and the women ravished…Then shall the Lord go forth to fight against those nations.”

“The day of the Lord” has already been signaled by several ‘when-then’ signs in 2015,” says Dr. Richard Ruhling, author on Bible prophecy. He cites the Iran Nuclear Treaty, also promoted by Obama as a “peace and safety” sign in 1 Thessalonians, chapter 5. The rare solar eclipse on the equinox and blood moon also signals “the day of the Lord” in the last verses of Joel 2.

But how will God “fight against those [Muslim] nations as stated above? In the Bible, God says, “There is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning.” Isaiah 46:9,10. In the book of beginnings, the 22nd chapter of Genesis, God tested Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Muslims say the son was Ishmael and they celebrate the ram sacrifice, calling it Al-Adha. Which is the true holy book?

The Bible offers further detail with a militant ram sacrificed in Daniel 8. We know Alexander the Great conquered the Medes and Persians (named in verse 20) at the Battle of Arbela in 331 BC. But Gabriel told Daniel that his vision was “at the time of the end.” Verse 17.

Iraq and Iran are where the Medes and Persians were. The end-time application is half fulfilled as Saddam is dead. Iraq and Iran are enemies of Israel, but Israel was also the son of Isaac. The sparing of Israel is the sparing of Isaac when militant Islam is sacrificed. What’s coming will show the Bible as the true holy book.

Moderate Muslims are closer to biblical religion than much of the US with its alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, crime, violence, Hollywood, TV, perversions and rock music that their leaders hate and call it Christianity.

One problem is Israel’s large secular component that has little interest in its spiritual heritage in spite of godly leaders like Netanyahu. The US is no better. 60 million abortions and a re-defining of marriage by the Supreme Court invites judgment on the US as well, says Ruhling who sees Passover as the time when judgment came to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

If Jerusalem suffers judgment at Passover in April, America should expect judgment a month later as clues like “the days of Noah” suggest. Destruction came with Passover timing, but in the 2nd spring month.

Then Muslims or Palestinians in Jerusalem claiming victory over the Jews, should beware. “The Lord shall roar…from Jerusalem and the heavens and earth shall shake.” Joel 3. They will get the message, but so will the US as the earthquake initiates ‘the day of the Lord’ in Joel’s 2nd chapter, 10th verse.

How history repeats may be reminiscent of God executing judgment on Egypt and taking Israel to a covenant, later saying, “I am married to you” in Jeremiah 3. Paul included that history of the Exodus when he said, “All these things happened to them for tupos—types… ends of the world.” 1 Corinthians 10.

EDITORS NOTE: For more information, readers can visit Ruhling’s website at http://MayJudgmentDay.com or get a copy of his eBook, The Alpha & Omega Bible Code.

Bates College students petition administration to become a sanctuary college

All over the country (we are told) college administrators are setting up sanctuaries for illegal aliens (and refugees!) to protect them from Donald Trump and his “deplorable” voters.

Here is what the students are saying at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine.

BTW, Bates is the Alma mater of House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte who is responsible for most immigration issues that come  before the House.  Can’t he get a little pressure going among other alums to stop sending donations if sanctuary is approved.

Or better still, how about seeing what federal money the college is getting and cut it off!

From Bates College students:

We, the concerned students of the Bates Community, move that Bates College follow the lead of over 200 colleges and universities across the nation in seeking official status as a sanctuary campus for undocumented immigrants living at Bates and in Lewiston. This is an imperative step as we prepare to protect the members of our community directly threatened by President-Elect Donald Trump and his administration.

Within the first 100 days in office, President-Elect Donald Trump plans to block funding for sanctuary cities and states and overturn Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA specifically grants protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who came to the United States under the age of 16 and before June of 2007. With the repeal of DACA, over 13,000 U.S. college students will be in danger of deportation. It is the duty of college and university administrations across the country to act in defense of students most vulnerable to President-Elect Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies.
screenshot-79

Sanctuary spaces around the country—including cities, states, and college campuses—serve to protect undocumented immigrants by refusing to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Colleges and Universities hold unique power in that ICE officials cannot step foot on campus property without authorization (policy number 10029.2). Not only will sanctuary status serve to protect DACA-mented, undocumented students, faculty, and staff, but it will also serve as a gesture of protection and kindness to Lewiston’s large Somali refugee population (one of the largest populations in Maine with approximately 7,000 Somali refugees)—a group of people whom Donald Trump has directly targeted in his campaign, blaming them for Maine’s increasing crime rates.

I guess the kids haven’t heard about Ohio State? Trump will be there today to meet with student victims.

Continue reading here to see what else the little darlings want.

Here is an idea for Mom and Dad! Instead of spending $50,000 a year for tuition at Bates, if you have so much extra money, maybe take some refugees/DACA kids in to your homes. Why waste it on Bates! Total cost with room and board: $66,000!

As a country we could do with far fewer colleges (like Bates) busy brainwashing kids.  Let’s focus on creating trade schools that might train students for something useful.

Go here for our complete (lengthy) archive on Lewiston, Maine.  And, definitely don’t miss this news  from Lewiston—Maine has a sexual assault problem!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

President-elect to visit Ohio State terror attack victims today

22 Charged, 1 Admits Guilt In Fake N.J. College Scam, Conspiring With 1,000 Foreign Nationals – Cranford, NJ Patch

SANCTUARY CAMPUSES: How the safety of students and faculty are compromised to achieve the leftist agenda

Two disturbing articles focusing on “Sanctuary college campuses,” serve as the predication for my article today.

On November 22, 2016 “The Atlantic” published, “The Push for Sanctuary Campuses Prompts More Questions Than Answers: It’s not clear how far colleges would or could go to stop the deportation of students.”

This article detailed how some “Sanctuary” colleges will not cooperate with immigration authorities.

Consider this excerpt from this article:

“Faculty at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, who would like to see the school become a sanctuary campus, met on Monday with administrators to “have a better sense of what their expectations are for a sanctuary campus,” said Joanne Berger-Sweeney, the school’s president. Her faculty expressed interest in the school declining to pass immigration information to federal authorities, and in establishing a network of alumni who are willing to offer pro bono legal help to undocumented students.”

On December 1, 2016 the website, “The College Fix” posted, “UC President Napolitano to campus cops: Don’t enforce federal immigration law.”

Here is are salient excerpts from this article:

Napolitano — who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under the Obama administration, charged with protecting the nation’s borders — put out a statement Wednesday that her office will “vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.”

The announcement comes as students in the country illegally and their peer allies are distraught that there might be mass deportations of undocumented students under a Donald Trump presidency. Many student leaders have announced their schools are “sanctuary campuses.” Now campus leaders are essentially following suit.

According to Napolitano’s office, there are about 2,500 undocumented students enrolled across the 10-campus UC system.

“While we still do not know what policies and practices the incoming federal administration may adopt, given the many public pronouncements made during the presidential campaign and its aftermath, we felt it necessary to reaffirm that UC will act upon its deeply held conviction that all members of our community have the right to work, study, and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” Napolitano stated.

The article went on to report:

With that, the University of California also issued its “Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the UC Community,” outlining measures they will take to protect DACA students:

The University will continue to admit students consistent with its nondiscrimination policies so that undocumented students will be considered for admission under the same criteria as U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

It is important to consider Napolitano’s statement about all members of the community “living safely and without fear at all UC locations.

How safe are students and faculty members on campuses where illegal aliens are shielded from detection by federal authorities?

Napolitano stated that all members of the community have the right to work.  Illegal aliens, however, are forbidden, by law, from working in the United States.

When Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security, she was in charge of the DHS agencies responsible for the enforcement and administer of the immigration laws yet she now equates immigration laws with discrimination.

The DHS was created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The enforcement and administration of our immigration laws were moved from the Justice Department to the DHS because it was understood that border security and the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws were matters of national security.

Our immigration laws are oblivious about race, religion or ethnicity but seek to prevent the entry or continued presence of foreign nationals (aliens) whose presence would pose a threat to national security or public health or public safety.

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from entering the United States.  This includes aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness, are convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies.

Aliens who enter the United States without inspection may have evaded that critical vetting process at ports of entry because they have criminal histories, may be fugitives or know that their names are listed on counter-terrorism watch-lists.

Some aliens who are subject to deportation (removal) were lawfully admitted into the United States but subsequently violated their terms of admission.  Some of these aliens are now subject to deportation because the have, since entry, have been convicted of committing felonies.

Janet Napolitano must certainly be aware of this yet she seeks to harbor illegal aliens who may well be criminals, fugitives or even terrorists on college campuses, including the campuses of the University of California she presides over.

The harboring and concealment of such illegal aliens is a felony under Title 8, United States Code §1324. (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens).

Yet the article noted that “The University will not cooperate with any federal effort to create a registry of individuals based on any protected characteristics such as religion, national origin, race or sexual orientation.”

Schools that admit foreign students are required to notify the DHS when foreign students fail to maintain their status as students.

On August 30 2016 the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) website posted a news release, “ICE releases quarterly international student data” that reported that more than 1.1 million foreign students are currently enrolled in more than 8,000 schools and universities across the United States.

Thousands of foreign students have gone missing in the United States.  How many are being harbored today on “Sanctuary campuses?”

Consider that on September 2, 2014 ABC News reported, Lost in America: Visa Program Struggles to ‘Track Missing Foreign Students’.”

Here is how this report began:

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.” 

Homeland Security officials disclosed the breadth of the student visa problem in response to ABC News questions submitted as part of an investigation into persistent complaints about the nation’s entry program for students. 

ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern. 

“They just disappear,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “They get the visas and they disappear.” 

Coburn said since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, 26 student visa holders have been arrested in the U.S. on terror-related charges. 

Tightening up the student visa program was one of the major recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, after it was determined that the hijacker who flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had entered the U.S. on a student visa but never showed up for school. 

The official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist TravelStaff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” focused specifically on terrorists entered the United States and ultimately embedded themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.

Page 47 of this report noted:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

For starters, any school that declares itself to be a “Sanctuary” for illegal aliens should have its authority to issue the form I-20 to foreign students summarily revoked.

Foreign students must present that form (I-20) to the U.S. embassy or consulate in order to be issued a student visa so that they may be admitted into the United States to attend school.

Foreign student advisors at each and every school are responsible for notifying DHS about foreign students who fail to attend those schools for which they were granted visas.  Clearly “Sanctuary Schools” cannot be trusted to cooperate fully with the DHS and make proper notification to the DHS.

No I-20 Forms:  No Visas:  No Foreign Students.

RELATED ARTICLE: In Texas, Republicans Fight New Sanctuary Cities in Wake of Trump Victory