A Vote That Will Illustrate The Lack Of Unity Among The Democrats

Yesterday The Hill reported that the House of Representatives will vote today to oppose the global boycott movement against Israel [known as the Boycott, Divest, Sanction (BDS) Movement].

The article reports:

Most Democrats in the House oppose the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, an international campaign meant to exert pressure on Israel over treatment of the Palestinians. Critics say it would isolate and harm Israel, which retains strong support in Congress from both parties.

But the BDS movement has support in Congress from some progressives, including Omar, who has offered her own resolution affirming the rights of Americans to participate in boycotts meant to promote human rights either in the United States or other countries.

Omar has cited boycotts of Nazi Germany and Apartheid-era South Africa in making the case for her resolution — comparisons that have drawn the ire of Israel’s supporters.

Rep. Lee Zeldin, a New York Republican who has frequently gone after Omar, criticized the Minnesotan’s resolution in a tweet last week for having the “nerve to claim moral equivalency between boycotting Nazi Germany and boycotting Israel.”

“Disgraceful,” Zeldin wrote.

The battle over the BDS movement on the House floor also comes as Omar has seen extraordinary attacks from President Trump, who in the last eight days has called her anti-American and anti-Israel, and tweeted that she and three of her congressional allies should “go back” to where they came from. Three of the congresswomen targeted by the tweet were born in the United States, while Omar was born in Somalia.

The article continues:

The resolution to formally oppose it has nearly 350 co-sponsors and is expected to pass easily with widespread bipartisan support. About three-quarters of House Democrats have co-sponsored the resolution authored by Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), while close to 90 percent of Republicans have signed on. 

Democratic leaders, conscious of the intraparty debate, are bringing the anti-BDS resolution to the floor under a fast-track process, known as suspension of the rules, that requires a two-thirds supermajority for passage with only 40 minutes of debate — a briefer period that will cut down on the theatrics of a divided party.

Omar isn’t alone in opposing the resolution.

Another Israel critic, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), co-sponsored Omar’s resolution. Tlaib and Omar are the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress.

Tlaib, who is Palestinian American, earlier this month called the resolution opposing BDS “unconstitutional,” saying it seeks to “silence opposition of Israel’s blatantly racist policies that demonize both Palestinians & Ethiopians.”

Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) is a co-sponsor of Omar’s resolution affirming the right to participate in boycotts, which doesn’t mention the BDS movement, but is also co-sponsoring the measure opposing BDS.  

It is not a coincidence that the two Muslim women in Congress are sponsoring a resolution that is anti-Israel. The fact that these women were elected to Congress from their districts should cause us to reevaluate how well we are assimilating the refugees we take in. Refugees who assimilate are a wonderful addition to our country. Refugees who do not assimilate who form political blocs that are inconsistent with the history and beliefs of our country often create problem areas.

A New Point Of View In The European Parliament

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today on some recent comments by Traian Băsescu, a former President of Romania, recently elected as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP).

The article quotes a Politico article:

Former Romanian President Traian Băsescu, newly elected as an MEP as part of the European People’s Party, slammed EU inaction on migration and what he sees as the bloc’s inability to protect its borders.

“The EU, through its lack of action, seems to tell us that we must live with the Muslim invasion,” Băsescu said in a TV interview this week…

…Băsescu said military fleets should be used in the Mediterranean to push back migrants while they are still in the territorial waters of the countries they set off from. This is the only way to stop them and put them back in a legal situation, since they’re trying to enter the EU illegally, he argued. “Any state defends its border,” he said.

The EU has to do that to fight not the “poor migrants,” but the criminal organizations that charge them some €5,000 to €10,000 to place them in Italy, Spain and Greece.

These “things are so well known that it seems very wrong to me that the EU does not put its resources together and stop” this, Băsescu said.

I believe he is right to call it an invasion. The demographics of Europe have changed dramatically as a result of the influx of refugees. The birthrate of the refugees is much higher than the birthrate of the native Europeans. Many areas of Europe are no longer part of western culture. Western culture recognizes the rights of women, allows freedom to practice religion, and allows economic freedom. Islamic culture does not. Unless Europe wants to give up its freedom, it needs to stop the invasion that has been going on in recent years.

One Has To Wonder About Their Motives

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article with the following headline, “Leaked Documents Prove Soros’s Open Society Is Working with UN in Supporting Current Illegal Migrant Crisis.”

The article includes the following:

Also in 2016 Breitbart.com obtained a leaked document from the Soros Open Society Foundation that reveals their close links to UN migration representative and former Goldman Sachs executive Peter Sutherland.

The George Soros Open Society also claims that through Sutherland they are able to influence international migration policy due to the current migrant crisis.

…George Soros’ Open Society Foundation admits influence and incredibly close links with UN migration representative and former Goldman Sachs executive Peter Sutherland in leaked document.

The paper, which told of how the migrant crisis presented an “opportunity” for the foundation to extend its global influence and attract more money, mentions Sutherland’s pro-migrant work. The foundation notes that through Sutherland they have been able to advocate at an “elite level” behind the scenes.

Open Society are one of the contributors to the Columbia Global Policy Initiative (CGPI) which hosts Mr. Sutherland and claim that through Sutherland they are able to influence international migration policy due to the current migrant crisis. On the United Nations website Sutherland is described as a “strong advocate for promoting practical action to increase the benefits of migration” and has routinely made comments against national borders and national sovereignty in Europe. Sutherland has even called for the European Union to “undermine the homogeneity” of member states.

Sutherland has even gone as far as defending all migrants regardless of whether or not they are legitimate refugees saying, “We’re not just talking, either, about refugees. We’re talking about economic migrants, many of whom could be the future, and some at the present… are survival fighters. They’re not to be dismissed as an irrelevance.”

It is becoming obvious that the United Nations has lost its way.

This is the Preamble to the United Nations Charter:

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

There is nothing in that Preamble about overwhelming countries with migrants in order to abolish national borders. If the United Nations truly worked for justice and human rights in the countries the migrants are fleeing, the migrants would not be fleeing.

We have to stop the migrant caravan at our border and insist that the people in the caravan go through the legal process of immigration. While we are at it, it might be a really good idea to get rid of the United Nations.

 

 

 

Asking The Right Question

First of all, The Gateway Pundit posted an article today that points out that the migrant caravan is not walking to America–they are arriving on flatbed trucks.

That actually makes sense. Who is paying for the trucks and the gasoline?

That article explains:

The migrants ‘walking’ through Mexico to reach the US appears to be more of a production than reality.

It’s clearly impossible for an individual or a group to cross the southern Mexican border and then walk all the way to the northern Mexican border in a matter of a couple of days. It is simply not possible.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article that I believes sums up the problem with the immigrant caravan headed this way.

The article at The Daily Caller reports:

Things got awkward fast after Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked Univision anchor Jorge Ramos to state exactly how many caravan members HE planned to personally take in.

Ramos, an outspoken immigration advocate, spoke with Carlson remotely on Tuesday from the caravan in southern Mexico. The Fox News host’s question came after the Univision host made several comments defending its members, including insisting unequivocally that none of them were from the Middle East.

“How many of these migrants are you taking in personally into your home and are supporting once they get into the United States?” Carlson asked.

“I think that’s a great question and that’s precisely the kind of question that people like you ask when you don’t want to understand that this has nothing to do with individuals,” responded Ramos. “It has to do with nations. And what we have to understand is that these refugees are not a threat to the United States. I know that in Fox News …”

“Before you attack Fox, this is a simple question,” Carlson interrupted. “How many are you taking in?”

After a back and forth that included Ramos stating that immigrants’ desire to come is “really a love letter to the United States,” the Fox News host pressed again: “I’m asking you a very simple question – How many of these migrants are you personally taking responsibility for? How many are going home to Jorge’s place in Miami at the end of the day? And please be specific.”

“I think that again this has nothing to do with individuals. I wish I could help all of them,” responded Ramos.

The problem is that we all want to help them, but we are not able to help all of them without overwhelming ourselves. Those who are saying we need to let in these thousands of people and feed and clothe them need to remember that we have homeless Americans (many of whom are veterans) that we need to help first. I am sorry that they have been misled to make the trip north by empty promises, but notice that the countries that they passed through on their way here have not provided them with asylum (as required by international law). The only way to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into America is to send them home.

In looking at the potention damage letting this caravan of people into the country could do, we need to remember the Cloward-Piven Strategy. The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. That is the promise of communism. We see how well that has worked in the past.

This Actually May Be The Solution To The Problem

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today that President Trump has stated, “The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!”

The United States has the right (and the responsibility) to protect its borders and its sovereignty. I would also like to point out that in order to get to America this caravan has to pass through Guatemala and Mexico. I think we should also cut off aid to those countries if they continue to allow these caravans of refugees to pass through.

The article reports:

Over the weekend, approximately 1,300 Hondurans were marching to Guatemala en route to Mexico so they could make their way up to the US border right in time for the November election.

On Monday, the migrant caravan, dubbed “March of the Migrant,” DOUBLED IN SIZE as it crossed through the Guatemalan border on its way to Mexico where they will head northbound to the United States.

According to Reuters, up to 3,000 migrants crossed from the Honduras into Guatemala after a standoff with police in riot gear Monday.

This is not acceptable behavior on the part of our neighbors to the south. Obviously the amount of aid we are currently giving them has not improved the standard of living or the amount of freedom for their citizens. I think it is time to tie our aid to economic improvements and greater freedom for the average people in the countries we give money to. If the citizens of Honduras had hope for economic well-being and freedom in their own country, they might be inclined to stay in their country.

You Can’t Vet This Number Of People

Breitbart.com posted an article today about the number of refugees President Obama is bringing into America.

The article reports:

The Obama administration has accepted 25,584 refugees into the United States in the two months and 26 days since FY 2017 began on October 1, according to the Department of State interactive website. That number is nearly double the 13,791 refugees accepted during the comparable period between October 1, 2015 and December 26, 2015 of the prior fiscal year (FY 2016).

It is also more than the previous high for the Obama administration during his eight years in office, which occurred in FY 2013 when 18,228 refugees were accepted between October 1, 2012 and December 26, 2012.

The Obama administration appears to be rushing as many refugees as possible into the country before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 45th President on January 20, 2017. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to pause the resettlement of refugees who come from Syria or other countries that have a history of hostility to the United States.

Taking in such a large number of refugees who (based on past experience with Muslim immigrants) may choose not to assimilate is a danger to America. If these refugees were thoroughly vetted and wanted to assimilate into American culture, they would be an asset to America. Without vetting and without the requirement to assimilate, they are a threat to America. Britain and Europe already have Sharia Courts and no-go zones. Does American want to learn from their mistakes or follow them down a path of destruction?

The actions of President Obama in recent days have been unbelievably destructive. I am reminded of the way that former President Bush made sure President Obama had a smooth transition into the White House. It seems as if President Obama is choosing to act as a spoiled dictator in his last days in office. I just hope President Trump can quickly undo some of the damage to America President Obama has done.

What Happens When Cultures Do Not Mix

The UK Telegraph reported yesterday that a French women and her two daughters were attacked by a man with a knife in the Alpine resort of Garde-Colombe, near Laragne, in southern France.

The article reports:

Initial reports claimed the man struck because he was angered by the women being “scantily dressed,” but a local prosecutor denied this. 

Raphaël Balland, prosecutor of Gap, said: “I wanted to quash the rumour currently doing the rounds because on no account did this man make such comments about the fact that the attack may have been motivated by the victims’ dress code.”

The attacker, named as Mohamed B, 37, “may have acted out of religious motives”, French television channel TF1 reported.

Despite the prosecutor’s denial, TF1 reported that he was angry that the girls were wearing shorts.

The mother had helped the attacker when he became ill the previous day, TF1 said.

Let’s look at this report. The article mentions later in the piece that the attacker was Moroccan-born and from the Paris area. The prosecutor obviously wants the media to avoid drawing the obvious conclusions about the motives of the attacker. The kindness of the mother on the previous day obviously did not impact the attacker’s intentions. This is what we open ourselves up to when we welcome people to America who have no intention of assimilating into our culture. The difference between today’s refugees and yesteryear’s refugees is that yesteryear’s refugees appreciated their new freedom and were anxious to become Americans. Unfortunately, many of today’s refugees want to turn America into the dysfunctional societies they fled.

Confirming The Obvious

The Hill has posted an article today stating that Islamic extremists have explored using the refugee program to enter the United States. This was confirmed by the head of the House Homeland Security Committee on Monday.

The article reports:

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) declined to go into detail about the determination, which the Obama administration has not announced publicly.

Yet the disclosure could add ammunition to critics of the White House’s refugee plans who have warned that the program is vulnerable to infiltration by adherents of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States,” McCaul said during a speech at the National Defense University on Monday.

“The U.S. government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in Syria have already attempted to gain access to our country through the U. S. refugee program.”

McCaul would not say specifically who informed him and other lawmakers about the revelation, only describing the sources as “elements of the intelligence community.”

The people who desire to destroy America are not stupid. They range from those who want to set up a world-wide Islamic caliphate that includes America to those who simply want to end America’s role as a beacon of freedom. It should not be a surprise to any thinking person that our porous borders and lax immigration policies can be exploited by both of these groups. I suggest that we do everything we can to settle the Syrian refugees in countries near their country so that they can return home to rebuild their country when the civil war ends. If they want to come to America, it should be on the condition that they assimilate.

Meanwhile, I think we need to suspend the flow of refugees until we have a better idea of who they are.