Archive for January 2017

“Islam Strengthening in Europe with the Blessing of the Church”

January 29, 2017

“Islam Strengthening in Europe with the Blessing of the Church”, Gatestone InstituteGiulio Meotti, January 29, 2017

These politicians, bishops and cardinals might convince Pope Francis not to abandon Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, to a looming dark fate. Michel Onfray wrote at the end of his book: “Judeo-Christianity ruled for two millennia. An honorable period for a civilization. The boat now sinks: we can only sink with elegance”. It is urgent now to prevent that.

There are now many Catholic commentators who are questioning the Church’s blindness about the danger Europe is facing.

“Islam has every chance massively to strengthen its presence in Europe with the blessing of the Church…. the Church is not only leading Europe to an impasse, it is also shooting itself in the foot.” — Laurent Dandrieu, cultural editor of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles.

“It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world…Islam, through the sharia, their law…allows violence against the infidels, such as Christians….And what is the most important achievement? Rome.” — Cardinal Raymond Burke, interview, Il Giornale.

“[T]hey are not refugees, this is an invasion, they come here with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, they want to take over.” — Laszlo Kiss Rigo, head of the Catholic Hungarian southern community.

François Fillon published a book entitled, Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism, and he rose in the polls by vowing to control Islam and immigration: “We’ve got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum,” Fillon said. “Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!”

Everyone in Italy and the rest of Europe will “soon be Muslim” because of our “stupidity”, warned Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompei. Liberati claimed that, thanks to the huge number of Muslim migrants alongside the increasing secularism of native Europeans, Islam will soon become the main religion of Europe. “All of this moral and religious decadence favours Islam”, Archbishop Liberati explained.

Décadence is also the title of a new book by the French philosopher Michel Onfray, in which he suggests that the Judeo-Christian era may have come to an end. He compares the West and Islam: “We have nihilism, they have fervor; we are exhausted, they have a great health; we have the past for us; they have the future for them”.

Archbishop Liberati belongs to a growing branch of Catholic leaders who refuse to see the future belonging to Islam in Europe. They speak in open opposition to Pope Francis, who does not seem too impressed by the collapse of Christianity due to falling birth rates, accompanied by religious apathy and its replacement by Islam.

2248Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompei (left) belongs to a growing branch of Catholic leaders who refuse to see the future belonging to Islam in Europe, and who speak in open opposition to Pope Francis (right).

Pope Francis’s official vision is personified by Bishop Nunzio Galantino, who was appointed by the Pontiff as the Secretary General of Italy’s Bishops. Last December, Galantino gave an interview in which he dismissed any religious motivation behind jihadist attacks and claimed that, instead, “money” is what is behind them.

There are now many Catholic commentators who are questioning the Church’s blindness about the danger Europe is facing. One is the cultural editor of the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles, Laurent Dandrieu, who writes:

“Islam has every chance massively to strengthen its presence in Europe with the blessing of the Church. The Church is watching the establishment of millions of Muslims in Europe… and Muslim worship in our continent as an inescapable manifestation of religious freedom. But the civilizational question is simply never asked …. By breaking away from the Europe’s indigenous peoples and their legitimate concerns, the Church is not only leading Europe to an impasse, it is also shooting itself in the foot”.

Dandrieu lists Pope Francis’ gestures and speeches in favor of Islam and migrants:

“On October 1, 2014, the Pope received Eritrean survivors of a shipwreck off Lampedusa; on 8 February 2015, he made a surprise visit to a refugee camp in Ponte Mammolo, northeast of Rome; on April 18, he used the first official visit of the new Italian president, Sergio Mattarella, to demand ‘a much larger commitment’ for migrants; on 6 September 2015, at the conclusion of the Angelus in St Peter’s Square, he called for ‘every parish, religious community, monastery and sanctuary in Europe to host a family’ of refugees; on March 24, 2016, he chose to celebrate the Holy Thursday in a structure housing 900 refugees, and to wash the feet to twelve asylum seekers; on May 28, he received children whose parents died in a boat that sank, filled with migrants; during the general audience of June 22, Francis went down to the crowd to bring back fifteen refugees”.

But as Liberati’s case demonstrates, resistance to Pope Francis’ vision of Europe is growing inside the Catholic Church.

“It is clear that Muslims have an ultimate goal: conquering the world”, Cardinal Raymond Burke said.

“Islam, through the sharia, their law, wants to rule the world and allows violence against the infidels, like Christians. But we find it hard to recognize this reality and to respond by defending the Christian faith (…) I have heard several times an Islamic idea: ‘what we failed to do with the weapons in the past we are doing today with the birth rate and immigration’. The population is changing. If this keeps up, in countries such as Italy, the majority will be Muslim (…) Islam realizes itself in the conquest. And what is the most important achievement? Rome”.

The first to denounce this dramatic trend was Italy’s most important missionary, Father Piero Gheddo, who said that, due to falling fertility and Muslim fervor, “Islam would sooner rather than later conquer the majority in Europe”. These concerns do not belong only to the Conservative wing of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and a candidate tipped to be the next Pope, is very close to Pope Francis, and is a centrist. Last September, on the anniversary of the Siege of Vienna, when Turkey’s Ottoman troops nearly conquered Europe, Schönborn delivered a dramatic appeal to save Europe’s Christian roots. “Many Muslims want and say that ‘Europe is finished'”, Cardinal Schönborn said, before accusing Europe of “forgetting its Christian identity”. He then denounced the possibility of “an Islamic conquest of Europe“.

After a Tunisian, who arrived among a flood of migrants into Germany, murdered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin, the Catholic archbishop of the German capital, Heiner Koch, another “moderate” Catholic leader appointed by Pope Francis, also sounded a warning: “Perhaps we focused too much on the radiant image of humanity, on the good. Now in the last year, or perhaps also in recent years, we have seen: No, there is also evil”.

The head of the Czech Roman Catholic Church, Miloslav Vlk, also warned about the threat of Islamization. “Muslims in Europe have many more children than Christian families; that is why demographers have been trying to come up with a time when Europe will become Muslim”, Cardinal Vlk claimed. He also blamed Europe itself for the Islamic takeover:

“Europe will pay dearly for having left its spiritual foundations; this is the last period that will not continue for decades when it may still have a chance to do something about it. Unless the Christians wake up, life may be Islamised and Christianity will not have the strength to imprint its character on the life of people, not to say society”.

Cardinal Dominik Duka, Archbishop of Prague and Primate of Bohemia, has also questioned Pope Francis’ “welcoming culture”.

Among the Eastern Catholic bishops there are many voices raising concerns about Europe’s demographic and religious revolution. One belongs to the leader of the Catholics in Lebanon, who paid an extremely high price for the Islamization of their own country, including murder and exile, and now see the danger coming to Europe itself. “I have heard many times from Muslims that their goal is to conquer Europe with two weapons: faith and the birth rate”, Cardinal Bechara Rai said.

Another voice belongs to the French-born Bishop Paul Desfarges, who heads the diocese of Constantine in Algeria: “It’s no surprise that Islam has taken on such importance”, Desfarges said. “It’s an issue that concerns Europe”. Sydney Cardinal George Pell then urged “a discussion of the consequences of the Islamic presence in the Western world”. Pell was echoed by Laszlo Kiss Rigo, the head of the Catholic Hungarian southern community, who said that “they are not refugees, this is an invasion, they come here with cries of ‘Allahu Akbar’, they want to take over”.

On the political level, there is another a tendency, that of strong Catholic leaders who challenge Pope Francis on the Islamic question and immigration. The most important is the French presidential candidate François Fillon, one of the first politicians who “doesn’t hide the fact that he’s Catholic“. Fillon published a book entitled, Vanquishing Islamic Totalitarianism, and he rose in the polls by vowing to control Islam and immigration: “We’ve got to reduce immigration to its strict minimum,” Fillon said. “Our country is not a sum of communities, it is an identity!”

These politicians, bishops and cardinals might convince Pope Francis not to abandon Europe, the cradle of Christianity and Western civilization, to a looming dark fate. Michel Onfray wrote at the end of his book: “Judeo-Christianity ruled for two millennia. An honorable period for a civilization. The boat now sinks: we can only sink with elegance”. It is urgent now to prevent that.

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right

January 29, 2017

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right, PJ MediaDavid P. Goldman, January 28, 2017

terroristpic

The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it’s great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

************************

President Trump kicked over a hornet’s nest by imposing a 90-day ban on immigration from selected Muslim countries in keeping with his campaign pledges. Andrew McCarthy, the federal prosecutor who convicted the blind sheikh and his accomplices of the first World Trade Center bombing, explains why the ban is legal–despite a federal judge’s restraining order against implementation of the order. I’ll leave it to the legal experts to explain why this is yet another outrageous abuse of power by the judiciary.

The legal issues will be sorted out soon enough. It’s the right policy, despite liberal whining and some conservative complaints.

The liberals claim that the immigration halt will convince Muslims that the U.S. administration isn’t fighting ISIS and other terrorists, but Muslims as a religious group. Some conservatives, e.g. Walter Russell Mead, call it “callous.” The latter characterization is misleading. It is callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks. In Europe, the elites accept a certain level of terrorism as the cost of doing business, and the people grudgingly accept it. Americans don’t see why they should sacrifice their safety or sense of security to accommodate the hurt feelings of other people. Prof. Mead compares this to America’s refusal to accept Jewish immigrants during the Holocaust. I respect Mead, but I find the comparison offensive: How many Jewish refugees from Hitler murdered civilians at random (the answer is, not one)?

As for the argument that the measure will alienate Muslims, precisely the opposite is true. Many Muslim governments, institutions, and individuals do not actively support terrorism, but tolerate it. Active terrorists are a small minority, but they swim in a sea of broader Muslim opinion that sympathizes with terrorists like Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

hamas

The last time the Pew Institute surveyed Muslim opinion about Hezbollah and Hamas (in 2010), it found majorities or very large minorities in support of these terrorists in most of the largest Muslim countries. In the United States, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)–founded by the pro-Hamas Islamic Association for Palestine–routinely denounces acts of terror on American soil, but has never once criticized Hamas terrorism in the Middle East.

The Obama administration and the Bush administration hoped to persuade Islamist extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch) to change their spots and turn peaceful. That didn’t work.

The alternative is to serve notice on Muslim governments: If they don’t crack down on terrorists and their supporters, we won’t let their citizens into the United States until we find ways to vet entrants ourselves.

The terrorists have been winning the intelligence war because a very large number of Muslims fear the terrorists more than they do the counterterrorism efforts of the United States and other Western governments. The terrorists infest Muslim communities and operate like a gangland protection racket. It is dangerous to stand up to them. This will change when Muslims fear the U.S. government more than they fear the terrorists.

Is that cruel? Of course. The world is cruel, but its cruelty is not of our making. The first duty of the U.S. government is to show kindness to prospective American victims of terrorism. And it’s great to have a president with the guts to do something about it.

Trudeau sends Trump a defiant message: “A Canadian is a Canadian”

January 29, 2017

Trudeau sends Trump a defiant message: “A Canadian is a Canadian”, CIJ News, January 29, 2017

(And a rabid dog is a dog. Please see also, Trump bans Canadian/British dual citizens from 7 Muslim countries from U.S. — DM)

The Embassy of Canada in the Washington announced that Canadian passport holders and dual citizens will not be affected by the US President Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” that temporarily bars travellers from seven nations that are known of their support of terrorism or serves as major hubs for terrorist groups.

Trump instructed the security agencies to formulate during the next few months a new policy to ensure a more effective security screening of terrorists and criminals before entering the US.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Trump’s National Security Advisor assured Ottawa that Canadian citizens travelling on Canadian passport will be dealt with in the usual process. In this regard, Trudeau tweeted the following:

Senior officials have been working to seek clarity for Canadians from the US Department of Homeland Security and US Department of Transportation, amongst other counterparts.

I instructed our National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, who was in touch over the course of the day with NSA Flynn to seek further clarification.

NSA Flynn confirmed that holders of Canadian passports, including dual citizens, will not be affected by the ban.

We have been assured that Canadian citizens travelling on Canadian passport will be dealt with in the usual process.

As we receive new information, we will continue to share on this and other channels.

In an implicit defiant message to Trump’s policy, Trudeau also tweeted “A Canadian is a Canadian” which was one of his slogans during the election campaign and has become an important pillar of his diversity and inclusion-for-all policy. In previous tweets last week Trudeau recommitted to continue welcoming refugees “regardless of your faith” based on the his deep belief that “diversity is our strength” and hailed Canadians who participated anti-Trump rallies.

In a Winnipeg Town Hall on July 4, 2015 Trudeau said the following:

The Liberal Party believes that terrorists should get to keep their Canadian citizenship.’ BECAUSE I DO. And I’m willing to take on anyone who disagrees with that. Because the question is, as soon as you make citizenship for some Canadians conditional on good behaviour, you devalue citizenship for everyone. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Speaking with students from American University in Washington, D.C. on March 11, 2016 Trudeau said the following:

One of the key elements of that [opposing the proposed Quebec Charter of Values] and a point that I am so incredibly proud of Canadians is a moment in our election campaign where the governing Conservatives put forward a proposal to strip and actually [they] enacted it before the election to remove the citizenship from Canadian citizens convicted of terrorism, dual citizens in this case, which quite frankly they thought it is a great idea because here they were, these are people convicted of terrorism against our country or acts of war against our country and they are therefore forfeiting the right to be citizens which seems like a reasonable thing, again. On a front.

But when you actually look at it and realize that means that someone convicted of terrorism with a dual citizenship could have different consequences under the law than a Canadian homegrown terrorist who has Canadian citizenship and is a six generation Canadian and therefore can’t have his citizenship removed at all.

You devalue the citizenship of everyone by making it conditional on good behaviour or non heinous behaviour which is ultimately the same thing.

So, I found my self in a situation on stage against the former Prime Minister [Stephen Harper] arguing that, yes, a man who he [Harper] had just stripped his citizenship of for being convicted of a terrorist act should have his Canadian citizenship restored even though he had literally, perhaps even literally, ripped up his Canadian passport. And yet I stand here as a Prime Minister of Canada.

People are reasonable. People need to understand that the rights and freedoms that keep us free and democratic society aren’t always easy and aren’t always a sort of a knee jerk adapted to how we want the world to be, but they are essential in terms of being the country we are and the people we are.”

 

DHS “will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders” on immigration

January 29, 2017

DHS “will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders” on immigration, Jihad Watch

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

**********************************

“President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

Steps to ensure border control and national security shouldn’t be controversial. That the Left is behaving as if they’re the second coming of the Nazi gas chambers shows how hysterical and silly Leftists have become, while their increasingly violent demonstrations show how eager they are to unleash rioting and bloodshed in the streets. I’ve long noted how thuggish the Left was becoming, and that tendency has sharply accelerated since January 20.

trump2-1

“Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation,” DHS.gov, January 29, 2017:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

Pseudo-liberal Jews cause great damage

January 29, 2017

Pseudo-liberal Jews cause great damage, Israel Hayom, Isi Leibler, January 29, 2017

We live in a world of chaos and upheaval.‎

Now is the time for all committed Jews to unite, stand together and concentrate primarily on ‎securing their own rights. Diaspora Jews who, from their comfortable armchairs, claim a ‎better understanding than Israelis of what is good for their security, should be treated with ‎contempt. Israel is entitled to expect support from committed Jews over the next few years ‎until it stabilizes its relationship with the world and creates an iron barrier to deter its ‎genocidal enemies.‎

****************************

Chaos is the order of the day throughout the entire democratic world.‎

This has been accelerated by the hypocrisy and intolerance of the vindictive Left, aided and ‎abetted by foolish bleeding-heart pseudo-liberals who have become accomplices in the ‎undermining of democracy.‎

One can understand that many Democrats were incredulous and devastated that Hillary ‎Clinton could be defeated by Donald Trump, whose lack of civility, absence of political ‎experience and coarse language even offended conservatives.‎

But the outpouring of rage, the histrionic protest marches throughout the world, the ‎establishment of committees to impeach Trump — even prior to the traditional 100-day ‎honeymoon period — is unprecedented. Contrary to all the claptrap about democracy that ‎they sanctimoniously preached while in office, leftists are unwilling to accept the fact that their ‎candidate was defeated by a parvenu.‎

The same chaos has swept through Europe, many of whose citizens are revolting against the ‎failure of the Brussels-based European Union bureaucrats to address their needs and above all ‎the collapse in the quality of their lives resulting from millions of so-called refugees flooding ‎their countries.‎

This has led to a rise in global populism, a revival of conservative and right-wing political ‎parties and rejection of the “politically correct” way of life imposed by sanctimonious liberal ‎ideologues.‎

How has this chaos impacted on Diaspora Jews?‎

As history has testified, during periods of stress and anxiety, Diaspora Jews face grave threats. ‎Anti-Semitism, already having reached record levels since the Nazi era, is poised to become ‎even more vicious. That situation has been temporarily muted because the prevailing threat of ‎Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks in many Western nations has directed public anger ‎toward Muslims rather than Jews. This does not apply to Hungary, Greece and Germany.‎

The Jews, as a minority that has suffered tyranny and persecution, would be expected under ‎current circumstances to concentrate primarily on their own security.‎

Ethics of the Fathers quotes Hillel the Elder, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I ‎am only for myself, what am I?”‎

Liberal-inclined Diaspora Jews — especially those lacking an authentic Jewish education — ‎appear to have reversed this dictum. They consider that the well-being of the world and ‎politically correct standards of social values must be their priority — with disregard to the harm ‎this inflicts on them as a community.‎

Observing Conservative and Reform Jewish leaders in the U.S., accompanied by once-‎mainstream liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and National Council of ‎Jewish Women, at the forefront of hysterical demonstrations accusing Trump of being fascist ‎and encouraging anti-Semitism, it is if they have been possessed by a dybbuk. ‎

The same bleeding hearts in the U.S. as well as those in Europe were at the forefront of calls to ‎open the gates to Muslim “refugees” steeped in anti-democratic behavior and nourished on ‎diets of undiluted, visceral anti-Semitism. Setting aside the question of ISIS terrorist sleeper ‎cells, there is little doubt that these elements will strengthen existing anti-Semitism in the older ‎immigrant Muslim communities that failed to integrate. Yet many Jews are so dismally ignorant ‎and oblivious that they even compare these immigrants to Jews facing annihilation during the ‎Holocaust who were denied haven by other democratic countries.‎

This behavior is even more disturbing at a time of historic opportunities with Trump’s election. ‎

Although by no means yet assured, the U.S., still the only true global superpower, may truly ‎treat Israel as a genuine ally, a move that would be reinforced by an overwhelmingly pro-Israel ‎Congress ‎

Trump has repeatedly proclaimed his determination to reverse former President Barack ‎Obama’s hostile anti-Israeli policy and create a new alliance between the U.S. and Israel that ‎would be sensitive to the security needs of the Jewish state. ‎

His commitment to recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would have more than ‎symbolic value. It would have a major impact in reversing the odious definition of the ‎settlement blocs and even the Western Wall and Temple Mount as occupied territory. Israel ‎could proceed to build homes and the Jewish neighborhoods over the Green Line would ‎prosper. ‎

Furthermore, the U.S. will hopefully no longer acquiesce to the U.N. persecution of Israel and ‎will reject calls to return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. ‎

Trump is also likely to bring an end to the U.S. component of the scandalous $300 million per ‎annum provided to the Palestinian Authority, much of which is doled out to murderers. ‎

Israel will also have a powerful ally that recognizes Iran as a rogue state and would ‎substantially reduce the genocidal threat from the Iranian Muslim fundamentalists.‎

All this has yet to be delivered but there is no doubt that there is now a window of opportunity ‎which Israel should exploit to dramatically minimize the security challenges and separate from ‎the Palestinians with defensible borders. This can be achieved if Israel now has the support of a ‎U.S. that can be counted on as a true ally. Over the past eight years under Obama, the U.S. ‎dramatically eroded Israel’s diplomatic standing, treated the Jewish state as a pariah and ‎provided incentives to the Palestinians to stall negotiations and engage in terror. With ‎renewed American support, Israel could at long last stabilize itself.‎

There is no disputing that many Democratic Party supporters, including large numbers of Jews, ‎were bitterly disappointed at the election result and were further outraged by Trump’s ‎triumphant and, in their view, divisive inaugural address.‎

But surely it is in the interest of the Jewish community to develop a good relationship with the ‎new administration, especially taking into account the enormous uplift it could provide to the ‎beleaguered Jewish state. Even setting aside his religious Jewish son-in-law, Trump has always ‎been close to Jews and his inner councils incorporate an unprecedented number of passionate ‎religious Zionist Jews. This was highlighted by the honored role of Rabbi Marvin Hier as the ‎first Orthodox rabbi invited to invoke a prayer at the presidential inauguration. ‎

In this context, setting aside individual political beliefs, one must question the legitimacy of ‎those purportedly mainstream Jewish organizational leaders who led the scurrilous accusation ‎of fascism against the new president and the Jewish progressive religious groups calling for ‎mourning and fasting. ‎

One of the main justifying positive elements of progressive Jews was that even if they did not ‎consider themselves obligated to follow Halachah, their activity would ensure that ‎they at least remained within a Jewish framework. What their leaders are doing now is the ‎opposite — encouraging them to take up liberal causes even if it means forsaking Israel, the ‎most fundamental component providing them with a Jewish identity. ‎

They have reversed Hillel’s maxim and act for what they perceive to be the universal needs of ‎humanity, dismissing the interests of their own people. They are undermining themselves as a ‎community and acting as lemmings marching off a cliff to their own destruction. ‎

There is only one example in Jewish history to which such behavior can be compared. The ‎Jewish Bolsheviks also turned against their own people and ultimately the revolution ‎consumed them. Unfortunately, the vociferous anti-Trump Jewish activists are a far ‎greater proportion of the American Jewish community than ‎Jewish Bolsheviks were among Russian Jews.‎

It is clear that in the Diaspora, committed Jews will remain overwhelmingly supportive of Israel ‎while the pseudo-liberal or progressive Jews will become less interested in Israel and ultimately ‎lose their identity. Indeed, Christian evangelicals now play a far greater role in promoting Israel ‎than some of the mainstream Jewish groups. ‎

We live in a world of chaos and upheaval.‎

Now is the time for all committed Jews to unite, stand together and concentrate primarily on ‎securing their own rights. Diaspora Jews who, from their comfortable armchairs, claim a ‎better understanding than Israelis of what is good for their security, should be treated with ‎contempt. Israel is entitled to expect support from committed Jews over the next few years ‎until it stabilizes its relationship with the world and creates an iron barrier to deter its ‎genocidal enemies.‎

Once the threats to the Jewish people have been overcome, we can and will become more ‎directly involved in tikkun olam and fulfilling Rabbi Hillel’s wise advice.‎

Cartoons and Video of the Day

January 29, 2017

My Fair Lady via YouTube

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

no

 

trial

 

H/t Washington Examiner

energisercongress

 

H/t Washington Examiner

trumpagenda

 

Nonsense: Refugees from terror lands are not like Holocaust refugees

January 29, 2017

Nonsense: Refugees from terror lands are not like Holocaust refugees, Israel National News, Jeff Dunetz, January 29, 2017

President Trump on Friday signed sweeping new orders tightening refugee and visa policies including suspending almost all refugee admissions for four months and indefinitely barring entry for some Syrians. Trump said the new measure was intended “to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America.” The executive order also suspends visa entry into the U.S. from seven terror-prone countries: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Sudan and Yemen.

Liberals of course  are going crazy. They say that Trump created this order because he is Islamophobic. They’ve even come up with a ridiculous comparison, “Anne Frank was a refugee also.” Indeed she was, but the reason for Trump’s action was totally different from the reason Anne Frank and many like her were prevented from coming to the US.

Trump’s executive action was made to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States. FDR prevented refugees from coming into this country because they were Jewish and he thought America didn’t need any more Jews.

In June 2016 then CIA Director Brennan said during congressional hearings that one of the ways terrorists infiltrate western nations is by embedding themselves within groups of refugees.

Brennan explained that ISIL has been recruiting and training westerners to infiltrate their countries of birth and commit terrorist acts. Interestingly, he identifies refugee flows as one of the ways terrorists can infiltrate. That seems to suggest that the United States needs to be very careful who it lets into the country, “which hasn’t been a priority for this administration, but there seems to be one presidential candidate who wants to put a temporary stop to immigration from certain countries that house radical Islamic I mean international terrorists.”

“And the group is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel. Further, as we have seen in Orlando, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, ISIL is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. Last month, for example, a senior ISIL figure publicly urged the group’s followers to conduct attacks in their home countries if they were unable to travel to Syria and Iraq.”

President Trump’s action delays acceptance of refugees until the DHS can figure out how to ensure they’ve kept the embedded terrorists from hiding within the crowds of legitimate refugees. His motivation is to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.

In the case of the Holocaust, the Nazi’s weren’t embedding themselves with the Jewish refugees. It wasn’t even suspected. The Jewish refugees were kept out because FDR was a bigot, his hatred of Jews caused thousands to be added to the ranks of Hitler’s victims.

Some point to the fact FDR didn’t bomb and destroy the train tracks that were shipping Jews to the concentration camps. Others say that bombing wouldn’t have prevented anything. The real question needing to be explored is why didn’t FDR allow more Jews into the country? And why didn’t he pressure Britain to allow Jews to move from Nazi controlled areas into what was then called Palestine?

In the book “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith,” historian Rafael Medoff suggests that Roosevelt failed to take relatively simple measures that would have saved significant numbers of Jews during the Holocaust, because his vision for America was one that had a small number of Jews. In other words, FDR doomed many Jews to suffer not because he wanted them to die, but because he didn’t want more Jews living in his neighborhood.

In a piece for the Brandeis Center, Medoff shared some of the hateful/public anti-Semitic statements Roosevelt made when he let his guard down: 

In 1936, he characterized a tax maneuver by the publisher of the New York Times as “a dirty Jewish trick.” In 1938, FDR privately suggested to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, one of the era’s most prominent American Jewish leaders, that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were to blame for provoking Antisemitism there.  In 1939, Roosevelt expressed (to a U.S. senator) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins.”  In 1940, he dismissed pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff.” In 1941, President Roosevelt remarked at a cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon.

The most detailed of FDR’s statements about Jews was made during his meeting on January 17, 1943, in Casablanca, with leaders of the new local regime in Allied-liberated North Africa. U.S. ambassador Robert Murphy remarked that the 330,000 Jews in North Africa were “very much disappointed that ‘the war for liberation’ had not immediately resulted in their being given their complete freedom.”

(Before the war, when the Jews lived under the colonial French regime, they enjoyed rights similar to French citizens. But when the pro-Nazi Vichy French took over the French colonies in 1940, they stripped Jews of those rights. In 1943, upon the defeat of the Vichyites, the Jews had expected their rights would be restored.)

According to the official record of the conversation (later published by the U.S. government in its ‘Foreign Relations of the United States’ series), the president replied that “the number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population,” which “would not permit them to overcrowd the professions.”

FDR explained that his plan “would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc, in Germany, were Jews.” (It is not clear where FDR obtained those wildly inflated statistics.)

Perhaps his distaste for Jews was the reason that, while there were many actions FDR could have taken to stop or slow down the Holocaust, he didn’t.

“He could have quietly permitted the immigration quotas to be filled to their legal limit — that alone would have saved 190,000 lives,” Medoff said.

“He could have pressed the British to open Palestine’s doors to Jewish refugees. He could have authorized the use of empty troop-supply ships to bring refugees to stay in the U.S. temporarily, until the end of the war. He could have permitted refugees to stay as tourists in a U.S. territory, such as the Virgin Islands, until it was safe for them to return to Europe. He could have authorized the bombing of Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to it, which would have interrupted the mass-murder process.”

Asked to respond to the argument that it was better for Roosevelt to focus on winning the war than divert resources to bomb Auschwitz, Medoff said “[b]ombing Auschwitz would not have required any diversion of resources, because U.S. planes were already bombing targets that were less than five miles from the gas chambers, during the summer and autumn of 1944.”

It really goes beyond that. FDR was reluctant to speak out against the impending genocide

On August 25, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt brought her friend Alice Hamilton, who had recently spent three months in Germany, to Hyde Park to give FDR a detailed eyewitness account of German brutality against the Jews. He still refused to publicly criticize Hitler.

On Roosevelt’s most blatant acts of bigotry involved the St. Louis whose story was  told by Pamela Adams at Constitution.com

“On May 13, 1939, the St. Louis set sail from Hamburg, Germany, to Cuba with 937 Jewish refugees on board. Captain Gustav Schroder, a non-Jewish German, was determined to rescue these men, women and children from Nazi Germany. To his dismay, he was forced to return 907 passengers to Europe, landing in Antwerp, Belgium, on June 17, 1939.

“Four months before Hitler invaded Poland, officially starting World War II, Jews were fleeing Germany by the thousands. Captain Schroder agreed to take a shipload on his luxury cruise liner to Cuba. Shortly before leaving, he was informed Cuba rejected most of the visas issued to his passengers. He left with them anyway, praying for a miracle.

“(…) Upon arrival at Cuba, the St. Louis was not allowed to dock. Captain Schroder worked for a week in vain to allow his passengers to disembark. He was denied. Only 22 Jewish refugees were allowed entry as they did have acceptable passage, along with four Spanish citizens and two Cuban nationals. One gentleman, so distraught over returning to Nazi Germany, attempted suicide. He was taken to a hospital in Havana for treatment for his wounds.

“Captain Schroder turned to America, pleading to President Franklin D. Roosevelt for help. Claims of improper paperwork, German Jewish immigration quotas and national security were given as excuses for rejecting the passengers. Afraid Schroder would run his ship ashore in Florida, forcing America to accept the refugees, the Coast Guard was sent to watch the St. Louis as it sailed close to our shores.

“Finding no help anywhere in North America, Schroder was forced to return to Europe. Determined to be the liberator of his remaining 907 passengers (as one person died during the voyage), Schroder refused to return his ship to Germany until all the refugees were given protection in other countries. The United States finally stepped in and helped secure those arrangements in European countries.

“Once those agreements for asylum were made, Captain Schroder docked his boat in Antwerp, Belgium, on June 17th. The United Kingdom accepted 288 passengers while France welcomed 224, Belgium accepted 214, and the Netherlands received 181. In less than a year, Hitler invaded Belgium and France in May of 1940, again threatening those refugees who for a moment had a taste of true freedom. It is estimated that 254 of the 907 returned to Europe were victims of the Holocaust, losing their lives in concentration or internment camps.”

Today the liberals are screaming that any delay or extreme vetting of refugees from those terror-prone countries is an act of Islamophobia, even though CIA Director Brennan said during congressional testimony that refugee flows is one the ways terrorists infiltrate western nations. They are even trying to make the ignorant comparisons between the situation delaying the acceptance of refugees from the terror-prone countries and the barring of refugees from Hitler.

The reason for the delay, announced Friday, was to protect American lives. The Holocaust refugees were kept out because of the bigotry of liberal hero FDR that caused approximately 200K extra Jews die in the Holocaust, because he didn’t want more Jews living in America.

Bottom line: it is pure nonsense, an intellectually dishonest — or at least ignorant — argument to compare the two groups of refugees or the belief systems of the two presidents.

Posted with permission from The Lid.

 

Most Countries Targeted By Trump Have Discriminatory Visa Policies

January 29, 2017

Most Of The Muslim Countries Trump Targeted Have Discriminatory Visa Policies

Ryan Pickrell

6:15 PM 01/28/2017

Source: Most Countries Targeted By Trump Have Discriminatory Visa Policies | The Daily Caller

At least six out of the seven countries targeted by President Donald Trump’s latest executive order have visa policies that discriminate against Israel.

Trump signed an executive order Friday temporarily prohibiting citizens from seven majority Muslim countries — specifically Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen — from entering the U.S.

Of that group, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan all refuse entry to foreign travelers holding passports or travel documents indicating that they have been to or are affiliated in some way with Israel.

Israeli nationals are not permitted to transit through Iraq, IranLibya, Yemen, Syria, or Sudan, even in situations where the traveler does not intend to leave the aircraft.

In Syria, individuals suspected of having affiliations with Israel have been detained for questioning.

These discriminatory visa policies are religiously motivated. Some have arrived at similar conclusions about Trump’s latest executive order, declaring the move a “Muslim ban,” but the order only restricts entry for travelers from a few predominantly-Muslim countries, not all of them.

For instance, the new policies do not apply to citizens of Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population.

The primary focus of Trump’s policies is combating Islamic terrorism.

“We want to ensure that we are not admitting into our countries the very threats that our soldiers are fighting overseas,” Trump said Friday. He stressed that his latest order is designed to “keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America” and “to protect the American people.”

The order aims to eliminate threats to the American populace. Temporarily restricting travel from certain terror-prone countries gives the administration time to establish an improved screening process, what Trump refers to as “extreme vetting.”

The order states that “the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.”

Follow Ryan on Twitter

My Islam Problem and Yours

January 29, 2017

My Islam Problem and Yours, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, January 28, 2017

liberty

[A]t least one interested party — the current president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has declared bluntly that his religion is in dire need of a reformation. Chances are he knows more about Islam than you. He certainly does than me.  Also, he lives in a hellacious region of the world dominated by that religion and its violent ideology.

How dangerous is that ideology?  Ask yourself this:  Why is it that since 9/11/2001 there he have been 30,209 terror attacks in the name of Allah?  There have been 38 in the last six days alone, resulting in 425 killed and 419 injured. There were also nine suicide bombings during that time frame.

******************************

You can be a virtue-signaling moral narcissist and get all exercised about Donald Trump’s executive order suspending visas from seven primarily Muslim countries for the next ninety days, but I have a question for you: what do we do about Islam?

You will note I say Islam and not some other euphemistic expression like radical Islam or Islamism or Islamofascism. Islam.

I know that disturbs you because chances are you live in a world where cultural relativism prevails and all religions — fusty old things that they are — are equal.

Well, it is so if you think so, but I will note again that at least one interested party — the current president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi — has declared bluntly that his religion is in dire need of a reformation. Chances are he knows more about Islam than you. He certainly does than me.  Also, he lives in a hellacious region of the world dominated by that religion and its violent ideology.

How dangerous is that ideology?  Ask yourself this:  Why is it that since 9/11/2001 there he have been 30,209 terror attacks in the name of Allah?  There have been 38 in the last six days alone, resulting in 425 killed and 419 injured. There were also nine suicide bombings during that time frame.

So I repeat, why is that?  DNA? That would be racist. Poverty? But most of the terror masters are rich. How about an ideology that urges you to do these things, just as it always has since the seventh century? Could that be the reason — just possibly?

If so, do you have some idea of what to do about that ideology or do you prefer to blame Donald Trump because he is trying to do something about it, at least trying to makes sure his own citizens are protected?

I know.  Sorry I asked.  Blame Donald Trump.  He was the one who blew all those people in San Bernardino to smithereens and then walked into that Orlando gay bar and wiped out everyone there as if they were digital images in some real-life video game.

Better to protest at JFK or wherever they are perpetuating this horrifyingly racist and unAmerican order the orangeman has perpetrated on the innocent of the Third World.  Give me your tired, your poor, Nancy Pelosi intones from the exclusive terroir of her Napa Valley vineyard. It’s a desecration of the Holocaust, says Jerrold Nadler, unknowingly desecrating the Holocaust himself by making such an absurd comparison.

No, ladies and gentleman, pretend though it’s otherwise, we do have an Islam problem, all of us.  Europe as we knew it growing up is practically gone and our society has been badly infected. When a massive march of American women is led by a Muslim woman who insists she wants to “take the vagina away” of one of the great freedom fighters of our time, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who herself has suffered from genital mutilation, we know things have come to a drastic pass.

But go on, blame Donald Trump.  It’s all his fault.  Islam doesn’t need a reformation.  It’s just the same as all other religions… as long as you don’t study it.  Or get in its path.

Newt on the Media: ‘These Aren’t Reporters — These Are Propagandists’

January 28, 2017

Newt on the Media: ‘These Aren’t Reporters — These Are Propagandists’, BreitbartJeff Poor, January 28, 2017

Friday on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took aim at the media for its extensive coverage of last week’s women’s march on Washington, while largely ignoring the March for Life that occurred earlier in the day.

Gingrich blasted the press, saying they were not reporters, but instead “propagandists.”

Partial transcript as follows:

ERIC BOLLING, FILL-IN HOST OF “THE O’REILLY FACTOR”: Despite the march is big turnout, the mainstream media appearing to do its best to downplay it today, especially compared to the nonstop coverage given to last weekend’s pro-abortion march.

Joining us now to analyze from Arlington, Virginia. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Look at the coverage. You look at the coverage. It’s nonstop, it’s wall-to-wall last week for the pro-abortion march, yet you hardly heard very much about this one even though Vice President Pence made an appearance

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, this is just pretty natural. I think, you know, Callista is singing at the basilica last night in the mass for life. And when they announced that Vice President Pence was going to be there, it was 90 seconds along broken applause. I think all across America, people of faith, people who care for life, people who are concerned about stopping abortion are thrilled that the Vice President of the United States for the first time ever, came to the march.

And let’s be honest, this is exactly what Steve Bannon was saying to “The New York Times.” Left wing, pro-abortion, anti-conservative news media are going to do everything they can to hide from the reality that there are vastly more Americans who care about life then there are who care about weird people wearing strange hats with kitty cat ears and talking about bombing the White House.

I mean, the grotesque difference between the hard left that we saw on Saturday and the Americans who came together today, the difference in attitude, the difference in tone, the difference in language, I think a lot more Americans are comfortable with Vice President Pence’s speech than with Madonna’s speech.

BOLLING: Uh-hm. And also, the difference is the media coverage as well.

GINGRICH: Well, look, the media is 80 percent or 90 percent of the media is the opposition party. I mean, let’s be honest about it. These aren’t reporters, these are propagandist. There was one panel on journalism in the age of Trump in which I don’t think a single member of the panel voted for Trump. They’ve learned nothing, they were wrong during the primaries, he won. They were wrong in the general election, he won. They’ve been wrong about his cabinet, it’s a great cabinet. They were wrong about covering the inaugural, which is truly a historic inaugural, hearkening back to Lincoln’s first inaugural in 1861. They miss it every time because they’re so far to the left and of so out of touch with every day Americans.