Central American immigrants’ story reflects Jews’ past

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

“David A. Lash is an attorney in Los Angeles, serving as the managing counsel of pro bono and public interest services at O’Melveny & Myers LLP. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Association of Pro Bono Counsel.”

He writes for the Jewish Journal June 17, 2015 (but conveniently does not mention anything Israel’s immigration practices, multi-culturalism is for the goyim):

At the facilities, we saw children who were clearly not healthy. Their life-endangering journeys to the U.S. left them exhausted, sick and scared. Many had lost a frightening amount of weight. Even more gut-wrenching, the children plaintively asked their mothers, “Why are we in jail?” Mothers cried to the lawyers, begging for help. Some had been held for six, eight, 10, even as long as 12 months. It was heartbreaking.
Amazingly, most of the detained families have viable asylum claims, making them eligible to remain in the U.S., entitling them to find safety in the promise of democracy. But without the chance to be represented by attorneys, they are without hope. As many as 95 percent of those without counsel will be deported simply because they are poor and cannot find representation. Many likely could pass their “credible fear interviews,” establishing to the satisfaction of U.S. immigration authorities they have a credible fear of returning to their home countries. This means they essentially could prove the bona fides of a legally sufficient asylum claim that, under the law, would entitle them to be released from detention. However, without lawyers, they cannot navigate the system, they are too frightened to tell their stories, the complexities of a foreign legal system are too overwhelming, and so, as a result, they likely will be returned to the dangerous places they risked their lives to leave. All because they are poor and do not have access to help.
One recently released mother told us of how she, her husband and young son had escaped a vicious rogue military group. Their other son, who is older, had been abducted. The family learned he had been taken by the “military.” The mother embarked on a desperate, ultimately futile search for her child. She first asked, asked again and then hounded local officials. She went to the police. She asked friends for help. Months passed, but her son was nowhere to be found. She repeatedly was warned to back off, stop going to the police, told not to contact local or foreign officials. One day, while this mother and her family were visiting her father in a nearby town, neighbors called to warn her not to return home because the family’s house was being ransacked, and angry men with guns were searching for her. The family fled to the U.S. with only the clothes they were wearing, trying desperately to save their remaining son, whose life they still had in their hands. At the border they were detained, the father sent to one facility, the mother and son to Karnes City. They were held for months, the young boy asking for his brother and his father, not eating, getting sicker and sicker. It was heartbreaking.
Another mother was with her daughter. They had witnessed the rape of another daughter and the murder of the father. They themselves then had barely escaped the horrors of their gang-controlled village, with local authorities unable to provide any kind of meaningful prosecution, much less protection. Similar stories abounded.
My thoughts quickly turned to another young woman. Like the women we had just met, she had escaped marauding soldiers in the countryside of her homeland. She was a teenager who had witnessed her sister being brutally raped and her brother carried off by the “army,” never to be seen again. Her parents scraped together enough money to hire someone to smuggle her out of the country. Her treacherous journey landed her in jail. When her family was able to secure her release, terrified and sick, the family sent her off again. This time, she reached the United States. She was reunited with her grandmother while in detention. When they ultimately were released, she managed to make a safe life for herself. However, she was forever scarred, forever frightened, forever missing her absent family members. That lone, brave teenage girl was my grandmother, fleeing from the pogroms of czarist Russia.
It is often said we are a nation of immigrants, all of us having become Americans because someone in our past was strong enough to escape oppression and find safety in the arms of democracy. Whether it was czarist pogroms, Nazi genocide, Middle East dictatorships or communist regimes, all of us are here because our ancestors had the inner strength to flee for their lives and make it through the Karnes City and Dilley of their day. Our Jewish bubbes and zaydes, often as young children, came through Ellis Island or through European displaced persons camps. Their immigrant transition was difficult. Language issues, poverty, anti-immigrant attitudes and anti-Semitism made for a hard climb up society’s social ladder. They were helped by a system of Jewish communal support and by the safety net of community. Today, American Jews are the living embodiment of one side of the current immigration debate. We are here and thriving in the United States because, despite many obstacles, this country opened its arms like no other culture had ever before done for us. These Latin American women today are escaping the same kinds of dangers, obstacles and nightmares that our ancestors fled, seeking peace and solace. As Jews, our histories remind us of the hurdles they will face and the helping hands they will need, which are within our hearts to fulfill. The ghosts of our grandmothers today are sitting in detention in southern Texas.

David A. Lash and his ilk are dedicated to the destruction of the borders protecting the United States of America. What is the best treatment for his ilk? I hope 50 illegal immigrant Mexicans move on to his block soon.

Posted in Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on Central American immigrants’ story reflects Jews’ past

A REAL ISLAM POLICY FOR A REAL AMERICA

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

By Lawrence Auster
Preserving Western Civilization Conference
Baltimore, Maryland
February 8, 2009

To deal with the crisis facing our civilization, we must be both realistic and imaginative. The realism part consists in recognizing how bad our situation is. The entire Western world is at present under the grip of the modern liberal ideology that targets every normal and familiar aspect of human life, and our entire historical way of being as a society.
The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.

This liberal principle of destruction is utterly simple and radically extreme. Yet very, very few people, even self-described hard-line conservatives, are aware of this principle and the hold it has over our society. Instead of opposing non-discrimination, they oppose multiculturalism and political correctness. But let’s say that we got rid of multiculturalism and political correctness. Would that end Muslim immigration? No. Multiculturalism is not the source of Muslim immigration. The source of it is our belief that we must not discriminate against other people on the basis of their culture, their ethnicity, their nationality, their religion. This is the idea of the 1965 Immigration Act, which was the idea of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applied to all of humanity: all discrimination is wrong, period. No one in today’s society, including conservatives, feels comfortable identifying this utterly simple idea, because that would mean opposing it.

To see how powerful the belief in non-discrimination is, consider this: Prior to World War II, would any Western country have considered admitting significant numbers of Muslim immigrants? Of course not; it would have been out of the question. The West had a concrete identity. It saw itself as white and in large part as Christian, and there was still active in the Western mind the knowledge that Islam was our historic adversary, as it has been for a thousand years, and radically alien. But today, the very notion of stopping Muslim immigration is out of the question, it can’t even be thought.

What would have been inconceivable 70 or 80 years ago is unquestionable today. A society that 70 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of admitting large numbers of Muslims, today doesn’t dream of reducing, let alone stopping, the immigration of Muslims. Even the most impassioned anti-Islamic Cassandras never question—indeed they never even mention—the immigration of Muslims, or say it should be reduced or stopped.

You don’t need to know any more than what I’ve just said. The rule of non-discrimination, in all its destructive potentialities, is shown in this amazing fact, that the writers and activists who constantly cry that Islam is a mortal danger to our society will not say that we ought to stop or even reduce Muslim immigration.

Such is the liberal belief which says that the most morally wrong thing is for people to have a critical view of a foreign group, to want to exclude that group or keep it out.

The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today’s liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It’s not impossible.

To understand how this unnatural and anti-human liberal belief came into existence and gained such power over us, we need to understand the natural and human order that the liberal belief is attacking.

I would like to quote the Book of Ecclesiasticus:

In much knowledge the Lord hath divided [men], and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned out of their places. (Ecclesiasticus, 33)
Every beast loveth his like and every man loveth his neighbor. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like. (Ecclesiasticus, 13.15.)

This passage beautifully expresses the true order of the world in which we live, the world in which men have always lived, but which modern liberalism denies and demonizes. That world can be explained in terms of two dimensions, which I call the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. The vertical axis is the relationship between ourselves and that which is above us and below us, that which is better and worse, that which is more true and less true, the relation between God and man. The horizontal axis is the relationship between entities on the same level, between different people in the same society, or between different societies or different cultures.
On the horizontal axis, the question is: how similar are things to each other? How different are they from each other? How well do they get along? On the vertical axis, the question is, what are the standards by which we live? What is good behavior, what is bad behavior? To what extent are we following the good, to what extent are we falling short of it or turning away from it?

I would add that one doesn’t need to be a Christian or a religious believer to know that this hierarchical order of the world exists. There are many aspects of the order of being that can be grasped through natural reason alone.

What I’m saying here is nothing fancy or metaphysical, it’s something that all people know by common sense. We live within these two dimensions—the better and the worse, the more like and the less like—in everything we do.

That is, we did live within them, until modern liberalism came along and said that it’s wrong to discriminate between higher and lower, it’s wrong to discriminate between better and worse, it’s wrong to discriminate between like and unlike.

Modern liberalism says that there cannot be a truth or a standard higher than ourselves by which our actions are judged, because that would make some people better in relation to that standard than other people.

In the same way, modern liberalism says that it is evil to believe that some people are more unlike us than others, because that would also be a violation of the liberal principle that all people are equally like us.

The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature. It prohibits normal authority such as the authority of parents and teachers over children. It banished the very idea of a morality that men ought to follow. And even God is banished if he’s a God who has any claims on us.

This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.

This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted—it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world.

I said at the beginning that we had to be realistic about the Islam problem. That meant understanding the forces that at present make it impossible for us as a society to discuss Islam honestly, let alone to do anything about it.

Realistically, from where we are now, a solution to the Islam problem is so far away it’s as though it were on another planet, another world, where liberalism has lost its stranglehold, allowing non-liberal things to be said and done.

Now it’s not only by conservative resistance that liberalism might be stopped. Liberalism may collapse of its own contradictions and irrationality. Liberals may slowly move to more realistic understandings. A recent example was a column by Ralph Peters in which he said that the entire nation of Afghanistan, all Afghans, are radically incompatible with ourselves. Given that Peters in his basic outlook is a vehement liberal, constantly waging war against bigotry and condemning the whole continent of Europe as incipient Nazis, that was a amazing thing for him to say. If that kind of understanding of the real differences between Muslims and ourselves expands, then even without liberals explicitly renouncing liberalism, they may perhaps move far enough away from liberalism to allow America to begin to adopt sensible policies with regard to Islam.

And other things may happen, acts of God, disasters, economic depressions, or unprecedented terrorist attacks, that may shock society out of its liberal attitudes.

But we don’t know that any of those things will happen, and we cannot count on their happening or on their having the effects we may hope for. Our task as Western patriots is to argue against modern liberalism, showing its falsity and destructiveness, showing that modern liberalism is wrong not just in its excesses, but in its fundamentals, because it is incompatible with our continued existence as a society. And in that process, all of the attitudes which modern liberalism enforces—the suppression of discussion about Islam, the suppression of discussion about immigration, the suppression of discussion about race differences and their significance—will be weakened, because each of those prohibitions is based on the idea that discrimination is the greatest sin.

Now that we have acknowledged the currently existing reality, and the tremendous change of thought that would be required to change it, let us take the imaginative and hopeful leap to a different reality, a reality in which society might actually do something about Islam rather than surrender to slow extinction at its hands.

What would be a real Islam policy for a real America? If there were a non-liberal president of the United States, and if he had enough support in the media and the Congress to get his program through, what would he do, and how would he propose it?

So now, as I begin to speak as that imaginary president might speak, let us imagine that we have leaped from our present planet of liberalism, where a solution is impossible, to the planet of reality. It may seem infinitely remote, but it is no farther away than a change in thought.

* * *
My fellow Americans:
I come before you this evening to discuss an unprecedented challenge in the history of our Republic, which will require unprecedented measures to meet it. We must think anew and act anew. But, in reality, what we must do is not new at all. It is the way things used to be, before we went so badly astray.

In my speech last week I spoke to you about the nature and doctrines of the Islamic religion; of the permanent state of war that it establishes between itself and all non-Muslim societies; of its ultimate aim of subjugating all of humanity to the law of Islam, known as the sharia; and of the fact that all believing Muslims, whether they are fanatics or moderates, whether they are jihad warriors or people who only believe in spreading sharia peacefully, are all part of one Islamic community, all strengthening in their respective ways the Islamic political agenda of bringing all non-Muslims under the rule of Islam.

I spoke of how, since the spread and imposition of sharia is a central function and goal of Islam, any increase in the number and influence of Muslims in a non-Muslim society helps advance sharia.

It is important to understand that what makes Islam dangerous to non-Muslims is not that Muslims are morally bad people. The problem is not that Muslims are bad people, the problem is that they are good Muslims. Our concern is with the religion and the political ideology of Islam, which makes all Muslims dangerous to us, since all Muslims, even if they personally have no aggressive intentions, even if they are personally fine and lovely people, are part of the Islamic community and owe their highest loyalty to Islam. Therefore any increase in the number of Muslims among us means an increase in the power of Islam and the further spread of the Islamic law.

My purpose is not to promote hostility against Muslim persons or to spark civilizational warfare between the West and Islam, but to reduce and end the current increasing civilizational warfare, by separating Islam from the West. We respect the right of Muslims to follow in peace their religion in their lands. But in order for us Americans to follow in peace our religions and flourish in our way of life, the followers of sharia need to leave our country and return to the historic lands of Islam.

I therefore will propose to the Congress tomorrow the following measures, which shall be called the American Freedom from Islam Act.

With the exception of immediate family members of U.S. citizens, diplomatic personnel, and temporary visitors for business and other legitimate purposes, all entry into the United States of foreign persons known or determined to be followers of the religion of Islam, whatever their nationality or country of residence, shall cease.
Any Muslim person with a temporary visa for business or diplomacy who advocates or promotes jihad shall lose his visa.
Any resident alien who openly espouses jihad or who participates in any pro-jihad activities or organizations will lose his residency status and be deported.
No resident alien who adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the doctrine of jihad, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the doctrine of jihad and have no association with pro-jihad activities and pro-jihad persons.
Naturalized citizens, whether they were naturalized before or after the passage of this law, who associate with jihad supporters or participate in pro-jihad activities, have shown that their oath of loyalty to the United States was fraudulent. Their citizenship shall be revoked and they shall be deported.
All mosques, Islamic centers and schools that promote jihad or sharia in any form will be closed.
The United States shall encourage the voluntary departure of Muslim naturalized citizens and their native-born descendants by offering all Muslim persons over the age of eighteen $50,000 each in a one-time fee to give up any claim of U.S. residency or citizenship, to return to their native land, and never to seek to return. The federal government will assure that departing Muslims will receive a fair market price for their real property, investments, and other property that they must sell prior to leaving the United States.
My fellow citizens, that is the first part of the bill that I will propose to the Congress. The measures I’ve enumerated so far would retard the growth of Islam. But they would still leave in place the existing U.S. Muslim population with their belief in sharia. Over time, our will to contain and police them might weaken, while their will to expand their religion and their political power will continue. Also, these measures imply that America would have to become a kind of police state, forever overseeing its Muslim citizens, examining their statements and activities, turning America into something we, and certainly I, do not want it to become.
For these reasons further steps are needed, aimed not just at stopping and reversing the growth of jihad support in America, but at stopping and reversing the growth of sharia in America. And to reverse the growth of sharia in America means to reverse the growth of Islam in America, through the forcible or voluntary departure of sharia-believing Muslims.

Therefore I shall propose these additional measures:

Any legal resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law shall be deprived of his resident status and removed from the United States;
No resident alien who advocates or adheres to, or who on investigation is reasonably suspected of adhering to, the sharia law, will be naturalized as a U.S. citizen. In order to be naturalized, Muslims will be required to state under oath that they totally reject the Islamic doctrine of sharia and have no association with pro-sharia activities.
Any naturalized citizen who violates this oath shall lose his citizenship and be removed from the United States.
Any mosque or Islamic center in the United States that promotes or seeks to spread the sharia law shall be closed.
This second part of the bill, which deals with sharia, is more far reaching than the first part, which deals with jihad. Removing jihad believers from the United States means removing only the extreme wing of the Muslim community. But since belief in the sharia law, and the obligation to institute and live under the sharia law wherever one lives, and to impose the sharia law on non-Muslims, is the very essence of Islam, removing sharia believers from the United States means removing a large part of the Muslim community from the United States.
But now we need to consider a further problem. The measures enumerated so far will inevitably be attacked as in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, in order for the measures that I’ve proposed to stand and not be overturned, we must have a further law stating that the First Amendment does not apply to Islam, does not protect the free exercise of the religion of Islam, because Islam is not only a religion, it is a political movement aimed at establishing tyrannical power over non-Muslims, and specifically aimed at overturning our Constitution, laws, and liberties.

However, even such a radical law would not get us out of the woods, because it also could be overturned as in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, in order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is.

And that, my fellow Americans, is precisely what the Constitution is supposed to be about. After the Civil War, slavery was prohibited, not by statute or presidential proclamation, but by an amendment to the Constitution declaring that slavery has no place in the United States. The same needs to be done with regard to the slavery that is Islam.

Such an amendment will be immune to any constitutional challenges, because it will be part of the Constitution itself. It will encourage many Muslims, at least those who care about their religion, and those are the ones we are most concerned about, to leave the United States on their own, without our having to do anything to make them leave, such as constructing a vast bureaucracy to investigate them and deport them. Simply as a result of our saying to them, “We have nothing against you as human beings, but your religion is a mortal danger to our entire way of life, and we cannot permit it to remain here,” the Muslims among us will begin to depart in a steady stream to the Islamic world, or perhaps to other Western countries where Islam is still welcome. It is my hope, however, that all Western countries will adopt laws similar to what I am urging here, resulting in the voluntary return of the great majority of believing Muslims in the West to the Muslim lands.

Here then is the constitutional amendment that I shall propose to the Congress:

Section 1. The religion of Islam, as propagated in the Koran and in the Islamic Traditions or Hadiths, and formalized in the Sharia Law, shall not be practiced, disseminated, or advocated within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. This article supersedes any contrary provision of this Constitution and of the laws of the United States.

Now that I have spoken to the American people about the steps we must take to preserve our freedoms and our very nationhood, I would like to speak to the Muslims of the world who are listening to me tonight.
I repeat that I have no ill will against you as people. I act with no animosity. I act in recognition of reality. And the reality is—and you know it, and now you know that we know it—that your religion commands you to make all peoples and societies submit to the Islamic law, wherever and whenever you have the power and opportunity to do so.

And one of the opportunities that have been presented to you is immigration. A half century ago, when we of the West began to admit large numbers of Muslim immigrants, we were, though we did not realize it, replicating what the city of Medina did in the year 622 when it invited Muhammad and his followers to emigrate there from Mecca. The most famous event in the history of Islam, the event with which the Islamic calendar begins, was an act of immigration. Muhammad and his followers moved to Medina, and within two years he had become the dictator of Medina, and Islamic law ruled in that city. That is a paradigm of Islamic expansion.

When we invited you Muslims into the West, we were, without knowing it, imitating what the Medinans did 1,400 years ago. You saw the significance of what we were doing, and you couldn’t believe the opportunity that we had handed to you. You had never imagined that we would do this. But we did it, we gave you the opportunity. And now we have to close off that opportunity by reversing the policies that brought you here.

I repeat, these proposals do not threaten you. We respect the religion of Islam when practiced by Muslims in their own countries. We have no designs on Islam. You have nothing to fear from us. We do not threaten you and your way of life. But you, as a religion and as a political movement commanded by your god to subjugate the entire world, most certainly threaten us. But you can only threaten us if you are in our lands. When you are in your own lands you pose no direct danger to us.

So, Muslims of the world, let us go on sharing in peace this beautiful earth that God created. But in order for there to be peace between us, there must also be fences between us.

Good night. God bless America, God bless Western civilization, and God bless the peoples of the world.

Posted in America, Islam | Comments Off on A REAL ISLAM POLICY FOR A REAL AMERICA

JTA: Trump rally incident, Carson anti-Muslim remarks spur civility call by 2 Jewish groups

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Because Jews are known for civility. That’s why we get to lecture the goyim.

Do these American Jewish groups lecture Israeli politicians about the need for civility? Asking for a friend.

From JTA:

Two Jewish groups pleaded for greater civility in political discourse after the loyalty of American Muslims was called into question during the Republican presidential campaign.
The Anti-Defamation League in a statement Monday cited an interview with Ben Carson, a physician and candidate for the nomination, who said in an interview that a Muslim should not be president. The ADL also noted that Donald Trump, the front-runner in the GOP race, failed to condemn a man at a rally who disparaged Muslims.
“Dr. Carson’s statement directly contradicts the Constitution and the values embodied in it,” ADL National Director Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “In America, personal characteristics – whether race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or religion – should have no bearing on person’s ability to serve.”
A number of Republican candidates did call on Carson to walk back his remarks and on Trump to forcefully repudiate the anti-Muslim statements made at his rally.
The Carson interview and the incident with Trump, the billionaire real estate magnate, took place over the weekend.
“As the campaign season advances, we urge all presidential candidates to avoid innuendo and stereotyping of all sorts, including against people based on their faith, particularly American Muslims and, instead, to confront all forms of prejudice and bigotry,” Greenblatt said.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella body for Jewish public policy groups, did not specify incidents in a separate statement on Tuesday but spoke more broadly of bigotry.
“The JCPA believes that civil political discourse is the key to having a knowledgeable electorate,” the statement said. “The deterioration of political disagreement into personalized attacks and bigoted statements diminishes the electoral process and discourages and alienates potential voters.”

Posted in America, Islam | Comments Off on JTA: Trump rally incident, Carson anti-Muslim remarks spur civility call by 2 Jewish groups

Jewish values inspire immigration reform

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Rabbi Ron Stern writes: “The Jewish community has benefited beyond measure from the immigration policies of this nation, which allowed Jews to immigrate to these shores for centuries. We are compelled to act because we remember our core story: We were strangers in a land that was not our own. The imagery of the Exodus and the Jewish story of immigration and rejection, of landlessness and powerlessness, continues to animate us and guide our consciousness of the fate of others. We have experienced the pain that comes from the separation of families, of closed borders, of inhumane immigration policies. Because Jewish memory is both eternal and inspirational, we believe that we must act to achieve immigration reform. We are proud to bring our own set of values to the forefront as we stand beside our many partners in the Asian, Latino and other faith communities on behalf of the undocumented and to seek justice for immigrants in California and throughout the United States.”

I wonder how many illegal immigrants Rabbi Ron Stern puts up in his home? How many would he like living on his block? How about a bunch of Haitians, Africans and Muslims to add vibrancy?

From FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform): Statements from family members of victims of illegal alien criminals. The videos in the below playlist are from a Senate hearing on criminal aliens on July 21, 2015.

The information below is taken from news sources. The aliens in these reports were all identified as being in the country illegally, and many of them had come into the hands of law enforcement agencies prior to the crime that is described below, but the alien was not deported or in some cases was deported but reentered the country.

These cases are listed as a demonstration that better prevention of illegal immigration is a public safety issue even though these cases are not representative of the illegal alien population in general. These cases refer to crimes other than terrorism.

  • August 2015 — Jose Angel Villarreal-Sanchez, a 42-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was convicted of possessing a firearm in Texas. According to federal law, illegal aliens are not permitted to possess firearms. Three baggies of cocaine were also found hidden in his backyard. Villarreal-Sanchez is expected to be sentenced in December. He could face up to 10 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 fine. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, August 11, 2015)
  • July 2015 — Ever Olivos-Gutierrez, an illegal visa overstayer, was convicted of second degree murder in Colorado for the death he caused while driving intoxicated. It was the fourth time since 2000 he had been arrested for DUI, but there was no record of immigration authorities ever being notified. He was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. (Denver Channel 7)
  • June 2015 — A Salvadoran, Mauricio Hernandez, convicted of rape and murder of the baby born to his victim was sentenced to 50 years in prison in Texas and faces deportation when he has served his sentence. (The Dallas Morning News, June 5, 2015)
  • May 2015 — A Salvadoran, Julio C. Saravia, faces deportation following a prison sentence of 29 years for rape of a minor, to which he pled guilty in Virginia.
  • May 2015 —
    Two Mexicans, Juan Hernandez-Sanchez and (FNU) Canela-Perez, pled guilty in Portland, Oregon and were sentenced to seven years in state prison for distribution of methamphetamines and heroin. (Oregonian, May 14, 2015)
  • May 2015 — Zeng Liang Chen and Dong Biao Lin, illegal aliens from China, were convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in New Jersey. (NJ.com, May 5, 2015)
  • May 2015 —Bernabe Flores, a Mexican illegal alien, pled guilty to first-degree rape in California and was sentenced to eight years in prison. (Times-Herald Record, May 7, 2015)
  • April 2015 — Victor Garzon-Alvarez, a Mexican illegal alien pled guilty and was sentenced in New Jersey to 14 years in prison for murder. (NJ.com, April 22, 2015)
  • April 2015 — Sergio Quezada Lopez, a Mexican illegal alien who had been deported four times, was sentenced in Oregon to 15 years in prison for a heroin overdose death. His brother, Gerardo Chalke Lopez, also a previously deported alien, was earlier sentenced to 18 years in prison on the same charges. (Oregonian, April 29, 2015)
  • April 2015 — Three illegal aliens, Uriel Ramirez-Perez, Darwin Zuniga-Rocha, and Eliseo Mateo Perez, pled guilty to first-degree sexual abuse (rape) in New York and were sentenced to time served in jail and will be deported. (Daily News, April 29, 2015)
  • March 2015 — Javier Guerrero Molina, a Mexican illegal alien, was sentenced in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida to 10 years imprisonment for attempting to transport a minor to engage in sexual activity. Guerrero said he had entered the United States illegally in 1999 or 2000. (Dept. of Justice, Middle District of Florida, March 30, 2015)
  • March 2015 — An Idaho judge sentenced Phuong Hoang Le, a Vietnamese illegal alien, to prison for 36 months. Le was convicted of possession of a stolen car and stolen credit card. The judge  commented, “Stealing cars and credit cards strike at the hearts of average middle class citizens.” The prosecutor said that Le had 10 prior felony convictions, but that according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he is not likely to be deported because if Le were to be deported to Vietnam “he would be killed.” (http://magicvalley.com/news/local/mini-cassia/ — March 25, 2015)
  • March 2015 — Luis Daniel Cabrera-Guzman, a Mexican illegal alien, was sentenced in Kansas City to two years in federal prison for conspiracy to produce and distribute false and counterfeit identification documents that were sold to illegal aliens. He had previously been deported twice in 2009. Four other Mexican illegal aliens have pled guilty to the same conspiracy and await sentencing. (Kansas City infozine, March 25, 2015)
  • February 2015 — Sergio Cobaruvias-Romero, an illegal alien from Mexico, was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute drugs in Texas. He was found with 20 bundles of methamphetamine weighing 46 pounds and four bundles of heroine weighing 13 pounds. He was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, February 17, 2015)
  • January 2015 — Jaime Gerardo Serrano-Villegas, a 28-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was convicted of transporting illegal aliens. He assisted in moving a boat filled with illegal aliens and faces up to 10 years in federal prison. (U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of Texas, January 14, 2015)
  • December 2014 — Two illegal aliens were arrested by Border Patrol agents in Laredo, Texas for illegally re-entering the United States. The illegal aliens were previously convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois, where they each served between 6 to 10 years in prison. They were departed back to Mexico upon completing their sentences. (Breitbart News, December 2, 2014)
  • November 2014 — Abel Hernandez-Labra, a Mexican illegal alien living in Iowa, was convicted of the following charges: one count of making false statements in a passport application, one count of aggravated identity theft, one count of making a false claim of U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and one count of harboring an illegal alien. Hernandez-Labra was sentenced to 51 months in prison and fined $5,000. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, November 4, 2014)
  • October 2014 — Freddy David Santos Campuzano, an illegal alien from Mexico, was sentenced to 57 months in prison for participating in a fraudulent document ring. The ring sold high-quality, fake identification documents in many states across the United States. 42 members of the organization have been convicted. (WTOP, October 17, 2014)
  • September 2014 — Ivan Espinoza Villafana, a 24-year-old Mexican illegal alien, was convicted of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, cultivation of marijuana, and depredation of public lands and resources. Villafana was caught growing marijuana on Mendocino National Forest land in Glenn County, California. He was sentenced to five years in prison. (U.S. Department of Justice, Eastern District of California, September 18, 2014)
  • August 2014 — Merced Garcia, a 37-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, was sentenced to 180 days in jail for vehicular homicide and driving without a license. (WLWT Cincinanti, August 26, 2014)
  • July 2014 — A Mexican illegal alien, Juan Bautista-Rubio, was convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. He used a social security card and permanent resident card to obtain employment in the U.S. Bautista-Rubio has previously been deported. (U.S. Department of Justice, Northern District of Iowa, July 9, 2014)
  • June 2014 — An illegal alien from the Dominican Republic, Renato de la Cruz, was convicted of theft of public money, use of a falsely obtained Social Security Number, and aggravated identity theft. He used a fake ID to receive unemployment benefits. De la Cruz faces a maximum sentence of 10 years and a fine of $250,000. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, June 24, 2014)
  • May 2014 — Humberto Gonzalez, an illegal alien, was convicted in New Jersey of criminal assault and sentenced to 50 years in prison. The rape occurred in 2005 and Gonzalez was not identified until a DNA match was made following an arrest in Texas for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Gonzalez also had a criminal record in Louisiana and Arkansas. (Times of Trenton, May 9, 2014)
  • April 2014 — Luciano Chavez-Morales, an illegal alien from Mexico, was convicted of possessing firearms and methamphetamine. Chavez-Morales was caught selling methamphetamine to an undercover Special Agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He is sentenced to serve 87 months in prison. (U.S. Department of Justice, District of Idaho, April 16, 2014)

  • March 2014 — An illegal alien from Mexico, Jose Luis Ariciaga-Banda, was convicted of possessing a firearm, possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and illegally reentering the United States after deportation. He was sentenced to 63 months in prison. (U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Louisiana, March 19, 2014)

  • February 2014 — Cinthya Garcia-Cisneros, an illegal alien from Mexico, was found guilty of two counts of a felony for failure to perform the duties of a driver and sentenced to three years of probation and 250 hours of community service. Garcia-Cisneros committed a hit-and-run that resulted in the death of two stepsisters, 6-year-old Anna Dieter-Eckerdt and 11-year-old Abigail Robinson.  (Associated Press, Feb. 4, 2013)
  • January 2014 — An illegal alien from El Salvador pleaded guilty to killing a 3-year-old boy and injuring nine other people while driving intoxicated. He was issued a driver’s license by the state of Utah, but did not have car insurance. Manuel de Jesus Guinea will spend up to 15 years in prison. (The Salt Lake Tribune, November 7, 2014)
  • January 2014 — Jasim Mohammed Hasin Ramadon, aka Jay Hendrix, an Iraqi immigrant, was found guilty in Colorado on multiple counts of sexual assault. He faces a possible sentence of life in prison. Sarmad Fadhi “Levi” Mohammed, another Iraqi was earlier convicted for the same assault and sentenced to 16 years in prison. An additional three Iraqi immigrants involved in the assault have received misdemeanor convictions. (Colorado Gazette, January 21, 2014) 
  • January 2014 — Modesto Osco, a Peruvian, pled guilty to indecent assault on a minor. He was sentenced in Pennsylvania to five months to two years in prison. (The Morning Call, January 6, 2014)
Posted in Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on Jewish values inspire immigration reform

Wiesenthal Center Urges New UC Committee for Hate Related Issues on Campus to Include State Department’s Definition of Anti-Semitism

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

In other words, they want to make opposition to Israel on UC Campuses to be illegal.

Have these guys ever heard of the idea of over-reach? The State Department already has a department devoted to the Holocaust. I was watching a documentary on Netflix this week about Winston Churchill. It was produced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and it was largely funded by the State Department.

Here is the announcement screen: “Production and distribution of this film was made possible in large part, through support, coordination and financial assistance of the office of Holocaust issues, US Department of State.”

Why are American taxpayers funding the Simon Wiesenthal Center?

For decades, Jewish activists have complained that the opponents of Israel, such as the Palestinians, should organize and push their agenda through peaceful means. Now they have through BDS and so Jewish activists want to declare it out of bounds.

From Wiesenthal.com: U.S. State Department includes demonization of Israel and the denial of the right of the Jewish State to exist as examples of contemporary anti-Semitism.

The Simon Wiesenthal commends University of California Regent and Wiesenthal Center Trustee, Richard Blum, and fellow Regents Norm Pattiz, Sherry Lansing, Bonnie Reiss, and Avi Oved for speaking up for Jewish students facing escalating campus anti-Semitism at yesterday’s UC Regent’s meeting.

At the meeting, the Regents dropped a draft resolution designed to deal with hate-related issues on UC campuses and created a special committee to rewrite it over the next few months. Former Regent Chair Richard Blum expressed the frustration of many with the failure of the UC system to take action. He was quoted in the LA Times that he and his wife, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), believe that, “students who behave in racist, anti-Semitic or other biased ways should face penalties such as suspension or expulsion.”

Rabbi Meyer H. May, Executive Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Aron Hier, Director of the Center’s Campus Outreach Program said, “We stand ready to work with the newly appointed committee and its chair, UC Regent Eddie Island to develop a coherent action plan to deal with Anti-Semitism on campus that would specifically include the Department of State’s Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism.” The State Department’s definition includes the demonization of Israel and the denial of the right of the Jewish State to exist as examples of contemporary anti-Semitism.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Simon Wiesenthal | Comments Off on Wiesenthal Center Urges New UC Committee for Hate Related Issues on Campus to Include State Department’s Definition of Anti-Semitism

A New Morality from Science: Beyondism

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Link: Richard Lynn, “Review: A New Morality from Science: Beyondism.” by R.B. Cattell. Pergamon Press, New York, 1972. Pages xvii and 482. Irish Journal of Psychology 2 #3 (Winter 1974).:

“A new book by Professor Cattell is always an exciting occasion, for his is certainly one of the most brilliant of contemporary psychologists. Before he was thirty he had devised the culture-free intelligence test and worked out a statistical technique for measuring the decline of the British national intelligence. Later he formulated the double g theory of fluid and crystallised intelligence and designed the world famous 16PF. And now we have his latest work: Beyondism. (205/6)

Beyondism! Whatever is it? It is a new system of ethics designed to bring about the improvement of the human species. We need a new system of ethics, Cattell begins by telling us, because the old ethics based on religion is so clearly breaking down throughout the world. The new ethics of Beyondism is based not on religion but on science. Its objective is the improvement of the human beings and society: a better world. The means of brining about this lie in the application of Darwin’s law of evolution. (206)

People who considered the problem of how the world can be improved fall into one or other of two camps. On the one hand, there are those who believe it is possible to draw up a blueprint of the ideal society. Everything is to be planned. This is the vision of socialism. The alternative approach is that of conservatism. To the conservative, we are not able to tell what an improved society of the future would be like, any more than our primate ancestors could imagine human society, or mediaeval man the advances societies of today. In the fact of our limited powers of foresight and understanding, and the unknown discoveries which will be made in the fullness of time, the best course is to let a better society evolve gradually of its own accord.

Of these two approaches, Cattell places himself squarely in the conservative camp The problem, posed from he viewpoint of the conservation tradition, is not to sit down and plan a specification for Utopia, but to set up the conditions under which further evolutionary progress will occur. For this we need to go back to Darwin, for he gave us the master theory of the principles of evolution, applicable not only to the development of different species in the past but also to the future progress of mankind.

Now evolution takes place where there is a variety of different types who compete against one another, and in this competition the fittest survive and the unfit become extinct. This, therefore, should be the first principle in the design of human society. The requirement of diverse competing types applies both to societies and to individuals. Among societies the unit should be the nation and there should be the widest variety of different cultures. Some will be capitalist, some socialist, and some mixed economies. Some will be democracies, others oligarchies, and yet other dictatorships. They will have different religions, or none; and they will have different kinds and distributions of intelligence and personality qualities. The nations will compete, and in the competitive struggle the fittest will survive. (207)

If the evolutionary process is to bring its benefits, it has to be allowed to operate effectively. This means that incompetent societies have to be allowed to go to the wall. This is something we in advanced societies do not at present face up to and the reason for this, according to Cattell, is that we have become too soft-hearted. For instance, the foreign aid which we give to the under-developed world is a mistake, akin to keeping going incompetent species like the dinosaurs which are not fit for the competitive struggle for existence. What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the populations of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of “phasing out” of such peoples. If the world is to evolve more better humans, then obviously someone has to make way for them otherwise we shall all be overcrowded. After all, ninety-eight per cent of the of the species known to zoologists are extinct. Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality.

As a general rule it would be best for national cultures to keep themselves to themselves and not to admit immigrants. There are several reasons for this. Isolation would give rise to societies with greater diversity and individuality, both culturally and genetically. Indeed, it would be desirable if the human race could evolve several different non-interbreeding species, since this would increase the options for evolution to work on. Another reason for discouraging migration is that migrants are often people of low genetic quality who reduce the efficiency of the population they join.

The first principle for evolutionary progress is therefore competition between diverse cultures. but we have to think also of the principles conducive to the efficiency of individual nations especially that of our own if we wish to be among the survivors.

It is of course necessary to improve the society by better education, health and so forth. Everyone agrees with that. But it is equally important to improve the genetic quality of society. Cattell maintains that in order to do this we need to encourage the intelligent people to have more children and the unintelligent to have fewer. And here, as in international relationships, the altruistic impulses have become unhealthily strong in advanced western societies. For just as in certain people the aggressive impulses, or the sexual impulses, can get out of hand, the same thing can occur with the altruistic impulses and has in fact occurred in advanced western societies. For example, we are too altruistic towards the poor. People are poor largely because they are incompetent and unintelligent. Such people should not be encouraged to breed. Conversely, we are too harsh to the rich. Progressive taxation, for example, is hard to justify. Why should the rich have to contribute more than anyone else through taxation to the maintenance of state services, since they do not benefit more from them? Morally, this cannot be justified. Eugenically, it is equally undesirable. For the rich are rich, broadly speaking, because they are intelligent and competent and we should encourage them to have more children. Let them keep their money and they may be persuaded to do so. We should allow the effects of competition full reign within societies as well as between societies. For it is through competition that evolutionary progress will take place.

Tough speaking, you man say. No doubt, but then Cattell is saying that this is a tough world. It is the law of evolution which is tough, and you cannot fight against the laws of nature. You have instead to work with them, working with the grain and not against it. Ignoring the laws of nature brings its own nemesis. Thus a society which has grown too soft towards its incompetents, encouraging them to multiply unduly, and places too great handicaps on its more efficient and enterprising, will itself become an incompetent society and will in time fall victim to a more vigorous nation. Moral defects within societies are thereby corrected in the competitive struggle between societies. The law of evolution cannot be fought or circumvented. We can ignore it, at our peril, or we can recognize it and work with it. But if all this — nature red in tooth and claw — seems harsh, we have to remember that this is the mechanism through which evolutionary progress takes place, through which man himself has evolved from more primitive forms of life, and through which future progress will occur.

And so for Cattell the basic principles for a scientific ethics are these: diverse societies and types; competition between societies and between individuals; survival of the fittest, extinction of the unfit. This is the way to a better world. How different from most prescriptions for Utopia, with their socialistic world states in which competition is extinguished and all men work together in a spirit of co-operation, brotherly love and, no doubt, boredom. And how different is Raymond Cattell today from the young Raymond Cattell who in the nineteen thirties, in his Fight for the National Intelligence, described himself as a Socialist. Over the last forty years Cattell has evidently travelled (sic!) the long road from radical Socialist to high Tory. He is not the first to have done so. Those who share this latter viewpoint will welcome a recruit of such undoubted brilliance as Raymond Cattell.”

Posted in Eugenics | Comments Off on A New Morality from Science: Beyondism

A Light Unto The Nations

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Six months ago, I wrote: For ethno-nationalists, Israel is a shining light of what a determined people can accomplish, but I guess if Jews develop an ethno-state, that’s a good thing, but if goyim attempt to similarly develop their own ethno-states, that’s bad.

“Fascist” is usually thrown around as a slur, but I fail to see why it is any less valid than any other form of government. Anthropologist Peter Frost writes: “Fascism is defined here in opposition to liberalism, the belief that individuals should be free and self-determining.”

If you ask Google, “Is Israel fascist?”, you will get over a million results. Here’s the first result, a book review of the 2013 book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel:

Max Blumenthal’s sprawling portrait of contemporary Israel is far more a work of journalism than political theory. It largely avoids sustained argument or analysis, allowing its main points to be inferred through the words of Israelis and Palestinians and short contemporary or historical descriptions, presented in several dozen vignette-like chapters. This is nonetheless a bold and shocking book, presenting persuasively a major theoretical and polemical argument about Israel almost completely at odds with the image most Americans have of it.

In Goliath, America’s foremost partner in the Middle East is not the humanistic and ever resourceful “David” using guile to vanquish surrounding brutes, but a militaristic and racist state whose electoral majorities have set it on a trajectory towards fascism, if it isn’t there already. Even those generally well-informed about Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories will have their views challenged by Blumenthal’s sharp eye and deadpan factual presentations.

Goliath eschews the standard liberal Zionist position that a relatively virtuous and democratic Israel was driven off course by some combination of the post-1967 occupation of territory won in the se-Day War, the burgeoning political power of the settlers, the authoritarian political culture of Russian immigrants, or the swelling political clout of Jews from North Africa and the Arab world. For Blumenthal, Israel’s 1967 victory was not a turning point so much as a new opportunity to implement the ethnic-cleansing ideology present at the state’s creation.

To a degree that has no clear equal among American journalists who cover the Mideast, Blumenthal is versed in the history of the 1948 war that created Israel, with its multiple expulsions of Palestinians from their towns followed by wiping those towns off the map. His narrative makes regular connections between this past and the present. For instance, a section on security procedures in Ben Gurion Airport is introduced by a description of the massacre of civilians in the Arab town of Lydda in 1948 that was followed by a forced march of 55,000 survivors to Ramallah, the so-called Lydda Death March. Lydda was then Hebraicized to “Lod,” site of the international airport where visitors to Israel and the occupied territories are now sorted by ethnicity before interrogation, their electronic devices often searched or seized.

Another episode: during the 1970s, the Jewish National Fund planted fir trees to cover the ruins of three Palestinian towns Israel had bulldozed in the aftermath of the 1967 war. The trees were nonindigenous to the region, though they reminded some Israelis of Switzerland. Three years ago, they burned in a huge forest fire Israel could not control. Some who fled the conflagration came from nearby Ein Hod, which once was an Arab town built of stone houses. In the 1950s, an Israeli artist lobbied for Israel to preserve the houses as studios instead of bulldozing them as planned, and the town was turned into a tourist destination. When Blumenthal visited, a young woman acknowledged that the bar in which they were sitting was in fact a converted mosque. “Yeah, but that’s how all of Israel is … built on top of Arab villages. Maybe it’s best to let bygones be bygones.”

Such a sentiment may have some practical utility and might be spoken in good faith, but from a citizen of a country where so much national culture is derived from remembrance of wrongs done to Jews, its lack of self-awareness is remarkable.

Not all the past memories are bitter. Blumenthal tells the story of Benjamin Dunkelman, a Canadian officer who volunteered to lead troops in Israel’s War of Independence. After signing a local peace pact with the notables of Nazareth, a cultural and economic center of Palestinian Christians, Dunkelman received a general’s orders to expel the inhabitants. He refused. When the general sought a formal written order to override Dunkelman, David Ben Gurion, who had given such orders before with a wave of the hand, balked at putting them in writing. So Palestinian Nazarenes, both Christian and Muslim, continue to live in Israel today.

A story of one of them, Hanin Zoabi, is told in one of Goliath’s pivotal chapters. Blumenthal arrived in Israel shortly before the Mavi Marmara affair, when a flotilla of boats sailed from Turkey with provisions to alleviate the blockade Israel had imposed on Gaza, the strip of territory it had evacuated settlers from in 2005 and then pulverized three years later. Israeli officials joked that Gazans, a majority of whom were suffering from what the United Nations called “food insecurity,” were having “an appointment with a dietician” and emailed to journalists sarcastic remarks about the menus of Gazan restaurants. As the flotilla approached, the Israeli military and Hebrew-language press ginned up a great panic about the boats, with their crews of aging European peace activists and a few Palestinian politicians. While the organizers assumed that Israel would relent and allow the provisions through, Israel sent commandos on helicopters and attack dinghies to storm the ship.

When some passengers resisted by throwing bottles and debris at the boarders, Israeli commandos replied with live ammunition. Nine passengers were killed, including a 19-year-old Turkish-American, shot in the face execution-style while lying wounded on the deck. Israel eventually apologized to Turkey for the incident and will probably pay compensation. But Blumenthal recounts with some astonishment that an overwhelming majority of the Israeli public felt their country’s brutal treatment of unarmed peace activists on the high seas was perfectly justified.

In the aftermath, the IDF went into public-relations mode. Israeli soldiers gathered up knives from the boat’s kitchen and laid them out in a photographic display with several Qurans, supposedly evidence the Mavi Marmara was leading an Islamist terror convoy. Israel jailed the surviving passengers and confiscated their laptops and electronic equipment. The IDF doctored a sound clip to make it appear that flotilla organizers were crazed anti-Semites. Outside the Turkish embassy, Israeli demonstrators railed against Turkey. Blumenthal interviewed several of them, who ranged from self-described peaceniks to Meir Kahane supporters. “The longer I spoke with the demonstrators,” he relates, “the more likely they were to merge their nightmare visions of the flotilla activists as hardcore agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and al Qaeda with Holocaust demons. ‘Everything is against the Jews and we have the right to defend ourselves.’ ‘No matter what we do everything is against us—everybody. And we know we’re right’.”

This sentiment was echoed in the Knesset, when Hanin Zoabi, a 38-year-old Palestinian representative from Nazereth, elected by one of the Arab parties, instigated a virtual legislative riot by challenging Israel’s right to board the Mavi Marmara on the high seas. Zoabi holds a master’s degree from Hebrew University and had been a feminist activist prior to her election in 2009. She was on the boat, and after the assault began she grabbed a loudspeaker and used her Hebrew to try to get soldiers to stop killing unarmed passengers. Returning to the Knesset two weeks after the incident, she was interrupted by shouts of “terrorist” and “go back to Gaza” while the Likud speaker of the legislature tried in vain to restore order.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on A Light Unto The Nations

Swedish Jew Goes All Out Against Her Own Government

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

If Jews in the West are once again thrown into a pit of death, you can thank Jewish activists such Annika Hernroth-Rothstein. Declaring war on your host nation can often propel host nations to go to war on your tribe. Guess who will win that war?

No healthy majority bends to its minorities. It demands that its minorities bend to them. Israel is an excellent example of a nation that is run for the benefit of its majority Jewish population.

If you don’t want to abide by the observed laws of your nation, perhaps you should try to change those laws, and if that fails, perhaps you should move?

Every Major American Jewish Organization Including The Orthodox Union And Agudath Israel Supports Immigration Amnesty.

Shmuel Rosner writes Oct. 20, 2013:

Annika Hernroth-Rothstein is a political advisor, writer, and activist in support of Israel. She is from Sweden, and is working to promote “a strong traditional Jewish community” in her native country. In September 2012 she organized the first public pro-Israel demonstration in Sweden in seven years – an event that drew 1500 people. A couple of months ago she wrote an article for Mosaic, on how to survive as a Jew in Sweden (Mosaic ran an important series of articles on the fate of European Jewry). But perhaps survival is proving to be a non-option. With circumcision under attack, Kosher food under attack, and a general sense of insecurity on the rise, the traditional Jew is gradually being outlawed in Sweden.

Last week, Hernroth sent a letter to my JPPI colleague Dov Maimon, our point man on Jewish European affairs. Maimon just recently wrote an important – and disturbing – report on the fate of contemporary European Jewry for JPPI’s annual assessment. “The campaigns to restrict Jewish rites we are observing today”, he wrote, “seem to be part of a wider cultural mega-trend that is not disconnected from the political, economic, and demographic European identity crisis. It is worthwhile considering whether current approaches and strategies utilized by Jewish communities – of winning short-term votes and attaining back-door agreements, but not always engaging with wider developments in public opinion – can protect Jewish practices over the long-term”. The Jerusalem Post was convinced- by Dov’s paper, among others – that it is time for Israel to get ready “to absorb thousands of European Jews”. 

Maimon shared Hernroth’s letter with some colleagues, and with her permission I’m now sharing parts of it with our readers. “In my community”, she wrote, “the traditional Jewish community of Stockholm, we discuss the possibility and consequences of Aliyah all the time. The main factor that holds people back is, honestly, the long term cost of relocation from a developed country. At this point, not only is the process almost laughed at for its bureaucracy, but one is also concerned about the downgrade in living – and working conditions”.

She then moves on to discuss the state of Swedish Jewry and what she calls “the horrific situation not only in my country but in Europe as a whole”:

In Sweden, kosher slaughter is outlawed. This, in a country that has one of the most liberal hunting laws in the world (where private slaughter is permitted during hunting) and that also permits halal slaughter. Brit milah is under attack. I personally am (today, actually) handling the 2nd bill in 6 months demanding the outlawing of all circumcision that is not deemed medically necessary and acute. Anti-Semitic attacks are constant. Most not being filed and processed. I have done the research and seen the statistics. It’s frightening. The people around me cannot walk the streets being visibly Jewish. The men cannot don kippot until within the synagogue; we are heavily guarded as we enter. At Rosh Hashanah 7 policemen guarded us as we walked to the stream for tashlich, a 5 minute walk in the most well off neighborhood in Stockholm. We are living in a silent terror, and accepting it with bowed heads. However, I cannot accept it any longer.

So I have decided to seek asylum in my own country. I realize how strange it must sound, but in a reality lacking logic it makes perfect sense.

I have read and re-read the terms and basis for seeking asylum in my country, as well as in the European Union. The law states that a person should be granted asylum in Sweden if he or she “has reason to believe that she will be persecuted due to religion, ethnicity, political views and/or sexual orientation and gender.” My plan for action is to seek asylum on the basis of religious persecution. As Jews, we meet these demands.

In another letter I received from Hernroth-Rothstein late last week, she writes that “I do realize the absurdity of what I am writing, what I am asking”. Still, she says, “the situation is beyond absurdity, beyond op-eds and strongly worded letters. This situation calls for action, reaction, and a statement from Swedish Jewry that it refuses to choose between fear and assimilation”.

The JPost, quoting from the survey of European Jewry conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, has the numbers from all over Europe. “In Hungary, 91% of respondents said anti-Semitism has increased in the past five years. That figure was 88% in France, 87% in Belgium and 80% in Sweden. In Germany, Italy and Britain, some 60% identified a growth in anti- Semitism, compared to 39% in Latvia”. This doesn’t mean that these Jews will soon immigrate to Israel. “In order to avoid friction with their environment, Jews take various steps – the more practicing Jews relocate in self-segregated neighborhoods, the more idealistic ones make Aliyah, and the most ambitious ones quit Europe for more promising horizons”, wrote Maimon in his recent paper. I guess Hernroth-Rothstein is the exception: she’s going all out against her own government, knowing that the chances for success are low, but feeling that fleeing without a fight just isn’t the right thing to do.

THE COMMENTS ARE SHARP:

* So she thinks Jews have a right to a “strong, traditional Jewish community in Israel” but doesn’t believe that Sweden has the same right? Sweden is a traditionally Christian nation; if they want to keep Christian traditions and reject kosher rule or circumcision (which, in Judaism, often involves the Rabbi sucking blood off of the infant’s penis after the foreskin is removed — it’s called “metzitzah b’peh) – then Sweden has just as much right to their own tradition. Ridiculous. This is what multi-culturalism has wrought. Hatred for host countries and religions.

* As fas as I know from reading about this development it will either be us or Germany that will be the first to ban the insane religiously backed inhuman practice of cutting babies dicks off. I am so happy if it will be another thing us progressive Swedes are yet again first to act against. This is a practice very disliked in Sweden but politicians do not want to touch the issue because if the practice is even mentioned Jews start screaming ANTI-SEMITISM or BLOOD LIBEL until they can’t breathe anymore. We don’t give a shit about religion in Sweden, take your backwardass violence and child abuse elsewhere, it has nothing to do with judaism or religion (in this case anti-semitism), we’re atheist in Sweden so we don’t care about ancient barbarism. You can cut of your foreskin when your 18 and old enough to make your own decisions. And no, we’re not banning kosher food. That’s just made up propaganda.

@Anthony Davis no we’re not a traditional christian nation, we’re a nation of nature worship through our history and we were the last country to adopt christianity in Europe and in many parts of Sweden christianity wasn’t culturally adopted until only about 200 years ago. We used to believe in spirits in nature everywhere, kind of like in Japan but today the vast majority are irreligious and think religion is for less developed people, as we should.

Posted in Immigration, Jews, Sweden | Comments Off on Swedish Jew Goes All Out Against Her Own Government

American Jews must speak out for Haitians in Dominican Republic

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

I hope a dozen Haitian teenage boys move into Rush Messinger’s home and a hundred move on to her block so she can personally receive the benefits of Haitian immigration.

“Ruth W. Messinger is president of American Jewish World Service, which works to end poverty and protect human rights in the developing world.” She writes July 28, 2015:

Fewer than 800 miles from our shores, a deeply disturbing crisis is unfolding as tens of thousands of citizens of the Dominican Republic face deportation from their country simply because of their heritage.
Tragically, people of Haitian descent who were born in the Dominican Republic have been stripped of their rights and their citizenship, and are living in a state of legal limbo. These people are not all recent immigrants, as the Dominican government would have you believe, but come from families that have been living in the Dominican Republic for up to a century.
I cannot help but see this crisis through Jewish eyes, and I call on the United States government to do all it can to stop it.
People with lifelong roots in the Dominican Republic as well as more recent arrivals are facing possible exile in Haiti. But for many born in the Dominican Republic, Haiti is a country in which they have never lived, whose language they don’t speak and which does not recognize them as legal citizens.
For some, exile is already a reality. In fact, a recent Human Rights Watch report documented more than 25 detentions in which Dominicans of Haitian descent were forcibly taken to deportation points along the border, despite having valid documentation of being born in the Dominican Republic.
Without any recognized citizenship, these people would be without a home, have no guaranteed civil rights, no right to due process in any court in the world.
Taking this all in, I cannot help but feel a sense of deja vu. We have seen this tragic movie before.
In 1939, in waters not far from the island that Haiti and the Dominican Republic share, Jewish refugees aboard the Saint Louis — people whose rights had been stripped from them in Europe — were denied access to Cuba and the United States. Throughout the 1930s, Jews found their rights being whittled away across Europe and most dramatically in Germany. When the Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws, they stripped Jews of all of their rights as the terrible first step of their genocidal campaign.
Further back in history during the Middle Ages, Jews were frequently expelled from countries such as England, France and Spain for spurious reasons, including causing illness and pestilence.
In the Dominican Republic, where there is a prevalent culture of racism and discrimination against Dominicans of Haitian descent, the situation is sadly reminiscent of very difficult chapters in Jewish history. For generations, politicians have used Haitians as scapegoats, blaming them for problems such as poverty and disease. Now the situation is getting worse, including a sharp increase in attacks. A February lynching of a Haitian immigrant and other recent assaults reflect a culture of violence against people of Haitian descent, and it is common to see racist depictions of Haitians in Dominican newspapers.
As we have seen in the past, institutionalized hate and mass violence unfortunately feed off one another. This fear of violence is forcing thousands of Dominicans from their homes — a practice that the Dominican government has given the Orwellian name of “successful self-deportation,” but which in truth is forced migration.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on American Jews must speak out for Haitians in Dominican Republic

ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIME ACCOUNTS FOR OVER 30% OF MURDERS IN MANY STATES

Posted on September 25, 2015 by Luke Ford

Tom Tancredo writes for Breitbart:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump deserves credit for forcing all 17 Republican candidates to talk about the social costs of illegal immigration, but it is not “Trump’s issue.” We will be making a fatal mistake if we let the media discuss it that way.

As Ann Coulter has pointed out, this is the most critical issue of the 2016 race because this is the issue that will define whether or not there will even be an American nation recognizable as the “home of the free and land of the brave.”

But illegal immigration is not “Ann Coulter’s issue” any more than it is “Tom Tancredo’s issue.” It is America’s issue — not only because it will define America in the 21st Century but because it also defines American elections and who will be voting in elections in 2020 and beyond. It also illuminates the power of the mainstream media to keep issues off the national stage.

Think of illegal immigration this way: If the liberal media can keep illegal alien crime out of the “kitchen table debate,” they can keep any issue out of the debate. And they will if they can get away with it. For those reasons, illegal immigration is much more than an issue of public policy; it is the poster child for media malpractice.

The media’s attempt to suppress public awareness over illegal alien crime and the effects of illegal immigration on American workers’ jobs and wages is nothing less than censorship on a massive scale. We need to start talking about it in those terms and hold the media accountable for the lack of ethical standards.

The mainstream media – including, sadly, major segments of the presumably conservative media, like the Wall Street Journal — are working overtime to keep the American public and the American voters in the dark on the scope of illegal alien crime. The murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco exposed only the tip of a massive iceberg, and the media establishment is desperate to avoid dealing with the iceberg underneath.

Let’s look at a few numbers. You haven’t seen them in the New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, or the Miami Herald, nor have they been featured on NBC Nightly news or CNN. So, the average American is blissfully unaware of them.

Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%.
During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states.
That 38% represents 7,085 murders out of the total of 18,643.
That 5.6% figure for the average illegal alien population in those five states comes from US Census estimates. We know the real number is double that official estimate. Yet, even if it is 11%, it is still shameful that the percentage of murders by criminal aliens is more than triple the illegal population in those states.

Those astounding numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system. The numbers were the basis for a presentation at a recent New Hampshire conference sponsored by the highly respected Center for Security Policy. You can view the full presentation here:

No American community has done more to promote immigration, both legal and illegal, than the Jewish community though it rarely supports the same kind of open borders policy for Israel.

Reading the agitation described below by left-wing Jewish activists reminds me of how organized Jewry in the diaspora consistently sides with the coalition of the fringe against the core. If looking out for non-Jewish workers was the essence of Jewish values, then you would expect that this would be an obsession in the Jewish state of Israel. Surprisingly, it is not. When you put in Google “arab worker rights in israel”, you get no indications of widespread Jewish activism in the first 30 results. So the following has next to nothing to do with Torah and everything to do with arming the brown fringe against the white core of America.

From the Jewish Journal in 2013:

“Should immigration reform be enacted into law, it will be a tremendously positive change in the lives of these people and for our country,” said Hadar Susskind, director of Bend the Arc Jewish Action, who also runs the progressive Jewish group’s political action committee. “At the same time, home care workers who are here legally, or are citizens, face a huge array of challenges.”

Bend the Arc was one of a number of Jewish groups actively lobbying for passage of the Senate version of comprehensive immigration reform. Others include the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has devoted significant resources to organizing Jews behind immigration reform and published a handbook in 2012 titled “Immigration Reform: A Jewish Issue?” In it, AJC invokes economics, national security and demographic power politics to make the case that Jews should get behind reform.
To persuade Jews to get involved with an issue that will mostly benefit non-Jews, the AJC brochure also leans heavily on the Jewish history of immigration to the United States and on biblical and talmudic texts.
Yet while immigration reform advocates ask Jews to think about what today’s laws might have meant for their grandparents and great-grandparents a century ago, domestic workers’ rights advocates are asking Jews to consider what today’s laws mean for the people who clean their homes, care for their children and look out for their aging parents…

Rabbi Jonathan Rosenberg of Shaarey Zedek Congregation, the largest Orthodox synagogue in the San Fernando Valley, said that the questions his congregants ask about domestic workers are focused less on wages and more often concern questions about “what a non-Jewish worker inside the home is allowed to do with regard to matters of observance.”

…The mother in this family didn’t just prohibit L’s mother from eating non-kosher food in the house, but extended the ban into the backyard. L had been visiting her mother at the time, and she told me she remembered watching as her mother’s Jewish employer snatched food away from them, threw it across the backyard, and then forced L’s mother to go clean it up.
Another woman told me that she had heard stories of domestic workers being forced by their kosher-observant Jewish employers to eat their lunches outside, or in the family’s garage.

COMMENT: “Why not just erase the border and call it a day.”

Posted in America, Crime, Immigration, Jews | Comments Off on ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIME ACCOUNTS FOR OVER 30% OF MURDERS IN MANY STATES