[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 15 September 2017 23:07.
The Hill, “Trump signs resolution condemning white supremacists”, 14 Sept 2017:
President Trump has signed a resolution condemning white supremacists following violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last month, the White House announced late Thursday.
“As Americans, we condemn the recent violence in Charlottesville and oppose hatred, bigotry, and racism in all forms,” Trump said in a statement released by the White House.
“No matter the color of our skin or our ethnic heritage, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God,” he continued.
“We are a Nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. As one people, let us move forward to rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.”
The White House announced that Trump signed the measure hours after the president revisited his controversial response to the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville, saying there are “some pretty bad dudes on the other side also.”
A bipartisan group of senators had introduced the measure amid concerns about Trump’s response to the violence, which erupted as white nationalists rallied to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
The resolution condemns “the racist violence and domestic terrorist attack” in Charlottesville, where a suspected white supremacist was accused of plowing a car into a crowd of counterprotesters, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others. It also rejects “white nationalism, white supremacy, and neo-Nazism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.”
The White House announced earlier this week that Trump would sign the resolution.
GoEagleSearch, “White House says Trump to sign resolution condemning white nationalists”, 13 Sept 2017:
WASHINGTON—The White House said Wednesday that President Donald Trump will sign a bipartisan congressional resolution condemning white nationalists, after the measure passed both chambers earlier this week.
The joint resolution targets the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups and urges the Trump administration “to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.”
Lawmakers said the legislation would put the president on the record opposing hate groups after violence erupted at a racially charged rally in Virginia last month.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday the president would sign the legislation.
Occidental Dissent, “Chuck Schumer Caught On Hot Mic Discussing Budding Partnership With President Cuck”, 15 Sept 2017:
Hey, MAGApedes, I know you guys have gotten as slippery as water snakes in your defense of President Trump, but I would very much like to see y’all defend what you’re about to hear courtesy of C-SPAN and a nice steaming hot mic.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the Senate floor Thursday morning to discuss Equifax’s massive security breach; the physical limitations of a border wall; and his supposed agreement with President Trump, struck alongside his House counterpart Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), to work to preserve protections for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
But before he officially took to the floor, Schumer bounded into the Senate chamber just after a speech by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and took a minute to converse with a colleague. “Sorry, just got here. Anything new?” Schumer can be heard saying on C-SPAN2’s live feed of the Senate, though he’s not seen on video. Then: “He likes us! He likes me, anyway,” Schumer says with a chuckle.
Schumer is presumably referring to himself and Pelosi, and Trump’s apparent affection for them — or one of them, anyway. He continues telling his unseen colleague that the statement he and Pelosi put out about Trump’s DACA promise was “exactly accurate.” “Here’s what I told him,” Schumer continues. “I said: ‘Mr. President, you’re much better off if you can sometimes step right and sometimes step left. If you have to step just in one direction, you’re boxed.’ He gets that.”
Let’s just be real here, Brothers, it’s pretty damned bad.
Like, it’s so bad that there really isn’t much room for maneuver whatsoever.
You can’t even make the argument that there is some sort of negotiating ploy alive here – most folks would say that we’re either seeing Trump operating on a Sub-Saharan IQ level, or we’re merely watching Jewry pulling a move honed by both time and use among peoples ranging from the Pagan Romans to the Catholic Poles.
Honestly, I see neither situation at play here – instead I see a man who because of blackmail (increasingly unlikely), through ignorance gifted by being a member of the 1% (possible), or by infection with the same egalitarian corruption that permeates both political parties (most possible) cares little about the White Man in the United States.
He would rather break bread with liberal Jews (and marry his daughter off to one), than sit with the working man whose ancestors built up this country from swamp, woods, and hostile wilderness.
But hey, if you’re just an average Trump supporter, don’t think I’m mocking you or gloating in the downfall of the President – the biggest fanbois are just in it for the money, their brand, or are trapped into a personality cult due to weird daddy issues that may never be cured.
Like you, I too was caught up in the frenzy during 2015 and 2016, and at points I truly hoped that Donald would at the very least buy us time by enacting policies that really aren’t too radical when you break everything down.
I went to rallies, pushed The Don on normies sitting on the fence, and literally wrote 2,000 or so articles covering the most exciting political race in living memory.
I have no regrets, and I feel no remorse, but I would like you to take a long look at what the Alt-Right is offering – we’ll actually fullfil our promises, and we’ll actually work to make America (or at least a chunk of the country) great again.
Indeed, people should take a long hard look at what the Alt-Right is offering, doing, who they are collaborating with and not follow them into the Jewish bum steers that they take without regrets, remorse - without learning. People should also avoid following the Alt-Right’s self defeating reactions thereof.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 13 September 2017 09:11.
Gatestone Inst., “Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies”, 8 Sept 2017:
The policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.
Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany.
Merkel’s grand coalition backed a law that would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at silencing critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is on track win a fourth term in office after polls confirmed she won the first and only televised debate with her main election opponent, Martin Schulz, leader of the Social Democratic Union Party (SDP).
A survey for the public broadcaster ARD showed that 55% of viewers thought Merkel was the “more convincing” candidate during the debate, which took place on September 3; only 35% said Schulz came out ahead.
Many observers agreed that Schulz failed to leverage the debate to revive his flagging campaign, while others noted that Schulz’s positions on many issues are virtually indistinguishable from those held by Merkel.
Rainald Becker, an ARD commentator, described the debate as, “More a duet than a duel.”
“Merkel came out as sure, Schulz was hardly able to land a punch,” wrote Heribert Prantl, a commentator at Süddeutsche Zeitung. “The candidate is an honorable man. But being honorable alone will not make him chancellor.”
Christian Lindner, leader of the classical liberal Free Democrats, compared the debate to “scenes from a long marriage, where there is the occasional quarrel, but both sides know that they have to stick together in the future, too.”
Television presenter Günther Jauch, writing in Bild, said he had hoped to “at least understand what differentiates Merkel and Schulz in political terms. Instead, it was just a conversation between two political professionals who you suspect could both work pretty seamlessly in the same government.”
Radio and television host Thomas Gottschalk said that the two candidates agreed with each other too often: “They were both always nodding their heads when the other was speaking.”
Germany’s general election is scheduled for September 24. If voters went to the polls now, Merkel’s CDU, together with its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), would win 39%, according to a September 4 Politbarometer survey conducted for the public broadcaster ZDF.
Coming in second, Schulz’s SDP would win 22%; the classical liberal Free Democrats (FDP) 10%; the far-left Linke 9%; the Greens 8% and the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) 8%.
The poll also found that 57% of respondents said they preferred that Merkel serve another term; only 28% favored Schulz to become the next chancellor. Nevertheless, half of Germany’s 60 million voters are said to be undecided, and some pollsters believe that the country’s huge non-voting population may determine the outcome.
As Merkel’s CDU/CSU is unlikely to emerge from the election with an absolute majority, the 2017 vote effectively revolves around the issue of coalition-building. If current polling holds, Merkel, who has vowed to serve a full four years if re-elected, will have two main options.
Merkel could form another so-called grand coalition, an alliance of Germany’s two biggest parties, namely the CDU/CSU and the SPD.
Merkel currently governs with a grand coalition and has done so during two of her three terms in office.
Both the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats have said they hope to end the grand coalition and lead the government with smaller partners after the September election. After the debate, however, many observers believe a grand coalition between Merkel and Schulz is more probable than not.
Merkel’s second option would be to form a three-way coalition with the Greens and the FDP, which served as junior coalition partner to the CDU/CSU for almost half of Germany’s post-war history. Merkel has already ruled out forming a coalition with either the Linke or the AfD.
In any event, the policy positions of Merkel and Schulz on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (right) and her main election opponent, Martin Schulz (left), whose policy positions on key issues are virtually identical. (Image source: European Parliament/Flickr)
Merkel and Schulz are ardent Europhiles and both are committed to more European federalism. During an August 12 campaign speech in Dortmund, for example, Merkel described the European Union as the “greatest peace project” in history and vowed that she would never turn her back on this “wonderful project.”
Previously, Merkel said:
“We need more Europe, we need not only a monetary union, but we also need a so-called fiscal union, in other words more joint budget policy. And we need most of all a political union — that means we need to gradually give competencies to Europe and give Europe control.”
Merkel has also endorsed the idea of a European Monetary Fund to deal with sovereign defaults by eurozone countries:
“It could make us even more stable and allow us to show the world that we have all the mechanisms in our own portfolio of the euro zone to be able to react well to unexpected situations.”
Schulz has argued that the EU must be preserved at any cost:
“We are at a historical juncture: A growing number of people are declaring what has been achieved over the past decades in Europe to be wrong. They want to return to the nation-state. Sometimes there is even a blood and soil rhetoric that for me is starkly reminiscent of the interwar years of the past century, whose demons we are still all too familiar with. We brought these demons under control through European structures, but if we destroy those structures, the demons will return. We cannot allow this to happen.”
Schulz has opposed the idea of holding national referendums on leaving the EU:
“Referendums have always posed a threat when it comes to EU policy, because EU policy is complicated. They are an opportunity for those from all political camps who like to oversimplify things.”
Schulz has also voiced optimism that the British decision to leave the European Union would facilitate the creation of a European Army:
“In the fields of security and defense policy, although the EU loses a key member state, paradoxically such a separation could give the necessary impulse for a closer integration of the remaining member states.”
During the September 3 debate, Schulz declared that he would end Turkey’s accession talks to join the European Union because of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s authoritarianism. Merkel initially said she opposed such a move but then suddenly changed her mind. Unexpectedly, Merkel said: “The fact is clear that Turkey should not become an EU member.”
On the issue of migration, Schulz and Merkel differ on procedure, not principle. During the debate, for example, Schulz accused Merkel of failing to involve the European Union in her 2015 decision to open German borders to more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Merkel said that although some mistakes had been made, she would take the same decision again.
In fact, Merkel and Schulz both agree that there should be no upper limit on the number of migrants entering Germany: “On the issue of an upper limit, my position is clear,” Merkel told ARD television. “I won’t accept one.”
Schulz has said:
“A numerical cap is not a response to the refugee issue, even if it is agreed upon in a European context. What do we do with the first refugee who comes to the European frontier and has no quota available? Do we send him back to perhaps a sure death? As long as this question is not resolved, such a discussion makes no sense.”
Schulz believes the European Union should have a greater role in migration policymaking:
“What we need is a European right of immigration and asylum. The refugee crisis shows us clearly that we cannot give a national response to a global phenomenon such as the refugee movements. This is only possible in a European context.”
Merkel has criticized Hungary for failing to show “solidarity” in aiding refugees. She has also vowed to punish Poland for its refusal to take in more migrants from the Muslim world:
“As much as I wish for good relations with Poland — they are our neighbor and I will always strive for this given the importance of our ties — we can’t simply keep our mouth shut in order to keep the peace. This goes to the very foundations of our cooperation within the European Union.”
Schulz vowed that, if elected chancellor, he would push for the EU to cut subsidies to countries that do not take in refugees: “With me as chancellor, we won’t accept that solidarity as a principle is questioned.”
Meanwhile, Merkel’s grand coalition backed a law that would penalize social media giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, with fines of €50 million ($60 million) if they fail to remove offending content from their platforms within 24 hours. Observers say the law is aimed at silencing critics of Merkel’s open-door migration policy.
Like Merkel, Schulz has reserved his worst vitriol for the anti-immigration AfD, whose leaders he has described as “rat catchers” (Rattenfänger) who are “trying to profit from the plight of refugees.” He has also called them “shameful and repulsive.”
In an August 22 interview with Bild, Merkel answered critics of her desire to continue in power by saying that the longer she rules, the better she gets: “I’ve decided to run for another four years and believe that the mix of experience and curiosity and joy that I have could make the next four years good ones.”
Note that according to EU rules, when migrants are granted permission to stay in Germany they are free to move anywhere within the EU after three years.
Newsweek, “Tillerson, Mattis and McMaster Present Trump With Plan to Stop Iranian Aggression”, 12 Sept 2017:
A Kurdish-Arab coalition known as the Syrian Democratic Forces has been battling ISIS in eastern Syria but has encountered hostile fire from Iranian-backed forces, as well as Syrian rebels backed by Turkey.
Ibid: Trump has railed against the landmark nuclear deal signed in July 2015 between the Islamic Republic and six world powers, threatening on the presidential campaign trail to rip up the agreement that lifted sanctions in return for reining in the country’s uranium enrichment program.
My personal position with regard to so-called “Hispanics” is that we should first of all differentiate among them. “Hispanic” is an egregious term, auguring to do the very worst thing which we seek to stave-off, i.e., to blend away racial distinctions, as the term covers and then tends to politically coerce the blending of Amerindians, Whites, Jews and blacks.
We need to distinguish them hence. We need to distinguish Marrano “huWhites”. We need to distinguish those who are black and have anything beyond a small amount of black - they should be looked upon as an out group - not our friends: e.g., Puerto Ricans typically have a significant amount of sub-Saharan African, 25%. Whereas Mexicans on average have only small amount, 4% as evaluated by National Geographic Human Genome Project, Gen 2.0. These kinds, Amerindians and Indios (mixed Indian and White) should be looked upon as people to cultivate as allies.
Certain Caribbean mixes should be shown some compassion in an effort to reconstruct as much as possible the now non-existent pure Indian strains which were forcibly bred-away with African slaves by Spanish conquistadors. Similarly, Indos should be allowed protection from furthering of the mongrelization that was visited upon them by the Spanish conquests.
As these historical errors are corrected, “a new dream” act should be enunciated in which the riches and opportunities of the Americas are shared between Whites, Asians and Amerindios in exchange for friendly terms and alliance with Whites against black, Jewish and Muslim imposition.
This must be arranged in accordance with human ecological and resource management - especially population carrying capacity: which tends to be the elephant in the room that liberals overlook in their anti-racist fervor. Make the said kinds friends and hold them accountable to our alliance in pervasive ecology and human ecology of our distinct kinds. We do this deliberately, or we are without a vast alliance, in fact it is arrayed against us as distinct peoples (nationals) and our habitats all…
Opinion // Save DACA: We U.S. Jews Won’t Let Trump End the American Dream
On DACA, the president appears unmoved by arguments of compassion, humanity, national interest or common sense. Now is the time to take a stand and take action.
“Dreamers” originally from Ecuador watch Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ remarks on ending the DACA program on a smartphone in Manhattan, September 5, 2017. Credit: Drew Angerer/AFP
The Trump administration moved on Tuesday to terminate the legal status of 800,000 immigrant children and young adults. These young people are currently protected by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA is only available to people who have been in the United States continuously since June 2007, so this decision will exclusively impact kids and young adults who have been in the country for at least 10 years and have impeccably clean records. About three quarters of the so-called “dreamers” have U.S. citizen family members, and one quarter have U.S. citizen children.
DACA is an executive action taken by President Barack Obama in 2012 after decades of failure in Congress to enact any kind of immigration reform. There is broad agreement across party lines that people who were brought to the United States as children by their parents did not make a choice to come here, and therefore should be allowed to stay in the country that they call home. Leaders of both parties, as well as business leaders, faith leaders, and the majority of Americans polled about it, support DACA and have urged President Donald Trump to keep it in place.
Like generations of immigrants before, including millions of Jewish parents and grandparents, the parents of these kids have made enormous sacrifices, not for themselves, but in the hope that their children would have a chance at a real future.
These kids are American in all but paperwork, and they are now living in fear. In just a few months, they may not be able to legally work, and will face arrest, jail and deportation. These are kids who have gone to school, made friends, joined teams, grew up, enlisted in the military, went to college, went to work, volunteered and lived normal, American lives. This moment should feel scary, disturbing and eerily familiar to all Jewish Americans.
Ending DACA serves no legitimate policy purpose and in fact, will hurt the U.S. economy. Particularly as we work to recover from Hurricane Harvey, where many DACA recipients are actively taking part in rescue and rebuilding efforts, the cruelty of this decision is in plain view.
Ending DACA will also make us less safe. As losing legal status causes people to recede into the shadows, they will be afraid to call and cooperate with the police. More parents will be afraid to take their kids to school and to church, to the park and to the doctor. More kids will live in fear of the knock on the door that will take their parents away.
HIAS is the global Jewish organization that protects refugees. We stand for a world in which refugees find welcome, safety and freedom. Guided by our Jewish values and history, we bring more than 135 years of expertise to our work with refugees. But our work is just one piece of the larger culture of equality and welcome we strive to create together with our supporters in the American Jewish community. Threats to the DACA program are not only threats to immigrants, but to justice, fairness and the longstanding values of our country.
This country’s history of accepting refugees and immigrants has offered generations of Jewish Americans the opportunity to recognize our full human potential and become part of the fabric of America. While there are disturbing elements that would deny this, and their voices are louder now, it is still true. It would be a stunning reversal and betrayal of our history to deny this opportunity to others who have already contributed so much.
The president appears unmoved by arguments of compassion, humanity, national interest or common sense. Now is the time for American Jews to take a stand and take action through elected officials in Congress. We can call Congress and insist that our representatives immediately pass a law that will allow these kids and young adults to stay here legally and permanently. This law must include no conditions or trade-offs, or in any way punish other immigrants.
We must restore basic fairness and morality to the way we treat immigrants in this country, and there is no better place to start than with these young Americans.
Melanie Nezer, Haaretz Contributor, is senior vice president of public affairs for HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that protects refugees
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 10 September 2017 06:51.
It is a playbook prescribing Islamic conquest that translates directly to that or your rape, brutalization and death. Ultimately it is kill or be killed unless they back-off of their religion for real.
Newscom.au, “Myanmar: Whole villages destroyed as satellite spots devastation from above”, 4 Sept 2017
GRAPHIC details are filtering through of violent massacres in towns that have been cut off from the modern day world. WARNING: Graphic.
A SATELLITE map has unearthed the charred remains of entire communities as terrified residents claim they are the targets of a new-world genocide.
“Some people were beheaded, and many were cut. We were in the house hiding when [armed residents from a neighbouring village] were beheading people. When we saw that, we just ran out the back of the house,” said Sultan Ahmed, a 27-year-old man from the former Chut Pyin village in Myanmar.
Sultan is among a group of 1.1 million Rohingya Muslims that are often described as “the world’s most persecuted minority”.
Rohingya people have lived for centuries in the western state of Rakhine, in Myanmar, but for decades have been persecuted by the Myanmar government. They are not considered among the country’s 135 official ethnic groups. The country has even denied them citizenship since 1982 and the state is one of the poorest in the country.
On August 27, it is alleged Myanmar state security forces and local armed-residents committed mass killings of Rohingya Muslim men, women and children. The military unleashed what it called “clearance operations”. Myanmar’s army chief justified the slaughter as “unfinished business”.
“We haven’t eaten in 4 days,” says Rohingya Muslim woman refugee.
“The killing spree lasted for approximately 5 hours - from 2 to 7pm” reported Fortify Rights.
More than 2600 villages were burned down throughout the state. It is becoming one of the “deadliest bouts of violence involving the Muslim minority in decades”, according to Reuters.
The violence — and ensuing exodus — saw survivors bringing with them harrowing tales of rape and murder at the hands of the military and Buddhist mobs.
“Some are gaunt and spent, already starving and carrying listless and dehydrated babies, with many miles to go,” read the New York Times on the new crisis facing the modern world.
It’s a result not helped by the silence of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, accused by Western critics of failing to support the Muslim minority that has long complained of persecution.
“The military came with 200 people to the village and started fires ... All the houses in my village are already destroyed. If we go back there and the army sees us, they will shoot,” Jalal Ahmed, 60, who arrived in Bangladesh last week with a group of about 3,000 after walking for almost a week, told Reuters.
Liberty GB applies some sensible advice on the matter of compassion and moderate Islam:
LibertyGB, “Tooth-to-Tail Ratio, or the Illusion of the Moderate Muslim Majority”, by Frank Phillips, 9 Sep 2017:
I would like to add my thoughts on the “majority of Muslims are peaceful” claim, and explain why it is pure fantasy.
1. TINY TEAM WINS, LARGE CROWD LOSES
All of us have heard, although in a different context, that it is not size that matters, but technique. Snicker as much as you like, but that is actually true. A lioness cannot match a buffalo in one-on-one combat, and a pride of lionesses is certainly outnumbered and ‘outhorned’ (outgunned) by a herd of buffalos. So how can they win despite these odds; how can 5-6 lionesses disrupt 50-60 buffalos to hunt down the one buffalo they want to seize?
Because the buffalos are just a crowd, but the lionesses are a team. Victory is achieved not by a large but otherwise loitering and incoherent crowd, but by a core-sized, action-oriented and coherent team.
2. THE TOOTH-TO-TAIL RATIO
This expression refers to the number of warriors who do the fighting, and the number of caretakers who sustain warriors so they can do the fighting. Hence, they are called combat troops and combat service support troops, respectively.
If you have no military experience, don’t panic, just pay attention!
A warrior needs ammunition, water, food, clothing, shelter and medicine. Fail to provide him the aforementioned items, and he will stand there empty-handed, dehydrated, hungry, shivering, exposed and sick, and ultimately he will die or surrender. Succeed in providing him these items, and he will sustain his function: fighting.
Or think of a football player. While it is true that the player does the ‘fighting’, he is supported by doctors, nutrition experts, fitness trainers, contract lawyers, financial advisors etc. to ensure his top-notch performance.
Or think of a novelist. While he does the ‘fighting’ for sure, there are typists, editors, travel agents, accountants etc. who keep him on the roll.
The football player and novelist are combat troops: the tooth. The others are the combat service support troops: the tail.
As you can see, the tooth is always significantly smaller than the tail. And while it is the tooth that bites into you, his bite would not be a reality without the tail sustaining the sharp and pointy status of the tooth.
3. WARRIORS IN THE COMMUNITY, OR THE INSURMOUNTABLE 15%
The tooth-to-tail ratio is understood not just within the armed forces, but also in any human community, let it be a village, a region or a country.
By 1944, German forces had been pushed back to their country, and the Allies on the Western Front and the Soviets on the Eastern Front were on the verge to enter Germany. It was essential for the Third Empire to mobilize as many able-bodied men as they could to fight for survival.
At that time, Germany had about 70 million residents, and the German forces had about 10 million men in arms. That is about 14% of the population, so a minority compared to the rest 86%. Why did they not set up an army of 20 or 30 million, considering the huge manpower of the Allies and the Soviet Union? 20 or 30 million are more likely to repel an invasion than 10 million. The answer is easy – they simply could not afford it.
Or think of North Korea. This country has the highest number of soldiers per capita, meaning 24 million residents and 1.2 million servicemen. That is just a 5% minority, compared to the remaining 95% of the population. Even in this case, the country is staggering on the verge of economic collapse, is kept alive only by Chinese investments, and was plagued by famine in the 1990s having caused death-by-starvation to about 2 million people.
Or think of the United States of America. This country has about 318 million residents and armed forces of about 1.3 million servicemen, thus the latter forms only about 0.4% of the population. With its involvement in as many as 160 countries (there are 200 countries on Earth), the upkeep of this tiny 0.4%, compared to the 99.6% of the population, has pushed the U.S. into sky-high debt.
This is what everybody has to understand: you can mobilize all the men you want, but who will provide weapons and food and fuel and medicine for those men if there are no workers and farmers and engineers and doctors? Nobody. Thus, your gigantic army soon will start to crumble and fall apart.
Military history and experience indicate that at any given time, a community can field and maintain no more than 10-15% of the population – they are the ‘extremists’ who do the fighting. Thus, you will always have at least 85% of ‘moderates’, i.e. average people who do not engage in extreme activities like fighting, but who, in reality, are likely to work hard to maintain the fighting capability of the 5-10-15%.
This is the reason you will never see the majority of Muslims becoming extremists and fighting the infidel – it is a physical impossibility. However, this truth also warns us that the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are not necessarily moderate because they have chosen that lifestyle, but because they cannot surmount the barrier forced upon them by mathematics and logistics (war material supply).
This was repeated by Muslim scholar Abul Ala Maududi who explained that jihad was not only combat for Allah but all efforts that helped those waging combat (qitaal):
“In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”
4. POSITION IN POWER REVEALS YOUR TRUE FACE
“A man’s character is most evident by how he treats those not in a position either to retaliate or reciprocate.” Paul Eldridge.
It is easy to claim to be a moderate when you have no chance to win an open-out conflict. However, we must take a look at dozens of countries where Muslims have supreme power: there are 57 Muslim states, plus many city districts in Europe, America and Australia where they form the majority, or where they are numerous. What do we see in those places: the fair treatment of people of different religions, of the fairer sex, of dissenting opinion, or a ruthless knockdown on them?
Exactly – it is the latter attitude that prevails, without any exception. Where are those so-called moderates calling for the abolishment of Sharia (the law of Islam)? Nowhere.
This must be no surprise as survey after survey indicates that both Muslims in Muslim countries and Muslims in the West favour, either as a majority opinion or in significant numbers, the execution of apostates, honour murders, the corporal punishment of women, and other rules set by Sharia.
5. A MUSLIM LIKES THE QURAN AND THE PROPHET MOHAMMED. DUH!
“Show me the man you honour, and I will know what kind of a man you are. It shows me what your ideal of manhood is, and what kind of a man you long to be.” – Thomas Carlyle
The so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim is still a Muslim – he believes what the Quran teaches and takes the Prophet Mohammed as his role model. He would not be a Muslim if he did not believe in those things. Duh!
Therefore, the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim is not a peaceful person – if he were peaceful, he would contradict the teachings of the Quran and the actions of the Prophet Mohammed, which would be blasphemy.
So just because he does not wave a sword, roar “Allahu Akbar!” and demand the jizya, it does not mean that he is peaceful – maybe he prefers that his comrades do the dirty work for him and for the cause of Islam.
6. WE MUST WIN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF MODERATE MUSLIMS TO BEAT RADICAL ISLAMISTS. *FACEPALM*
Did we win the hearts and minds of moderate Nazis to beat radical Nazis? Did we win the hearts and minds of moderate Communists to beat radical Communismists?
Instead of creating and using non-existing words to pussyfoot around the problem, let’s face reality: A Nazi is a Nazi. Period. A Commie is a Commie. Period. A Muzzie is a Muzzie. Period.
If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas. Anything else is just lazy excuse.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 08 September 2017 06:45.
New Observer, “Jewish Extremist Hate Group SPLC’s Secret Cayman Island Accounts Exposed; Do the Donors Know?”, 31 Aug 2017:
One of America’s most notorious Jewish extremist hate groups, the SPLC, has been exposed as stashing millions of dollars in cash—presumably from donors—in secret Cayman Island bank accounts, according to a new report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) news service.
The SPLC, which poses as an “anti-racist” organization, is merely another Jewish extremist pressure group—like its sister organization, the ADL.
According to the WFB, the SPLC, which is registered as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, has pushed “millions of dollars to offshore entities.”
Additionally, the Free Beacon said, the SPLC “pays lucrative six-figure salaries to its top directors and key employees while spending little on legal services despite its stated intent of ‘fighting hate and bigotry’ using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy.”
Quoting the SPLC’s own tax return records, the WFB said that the SPLC has
“ . . . ‘financial interests’ in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Bermuda. No information is available beyond the acknowledgment of the interests at the bottom of the form.
However, the Washington Free Beacon discovered forms from 2014 that shed light on some of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s transfers to foreign entities.
The SPLC’s Form 8865, a Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships, from 2014 shows that the nonprofit transferred hundreds of thousands to an account located in the Cayman Islands.
SPLC lists Tiger Global Management LLC, a New York-based private equity financial firm, as an agent on its form. The form shows a foreign partnership between the SPLC and Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P., a pooled investment fund in the Cayman Islands. SPLC transferred $960,000 in cash on Nov. 24, 2014 to Tiger Global Private Investment Partners IX, L.P, its records show.
The SPLC’s Form 926, a Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation, from 2014 shows additional cash transactions that the nonprofit had sent to offshore funds.
The SPLC reported a $102,007 cash transfer on Dec. 24, 2014 to BPV-III Cayman X Limited, a foreign entity located in the Cayman Islands. The group then sent $157,574 in cash to BPV-III Cayman XI Limited on Dec. 31, 2014, an entity that lists the same PO Box address in Grand Cayman as the previous transfer.
The nonprofit pushed millions more into offshore funds at the beginning of 2015.
On March 1, 2015, SPLC sent $2,200,000 to an entity incorporated in Canana Bay, Cayman Islands, according to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) records and run by a firm firm based in Greenwich, Ct. Another $2,200,000 cash transfer was made on the same day to another fund whose business is located at the same address as the previous fund in the Cayman Islands, according to SEC records.
No information is contained on its interests in Bermuda on the 2014 forms. SPLC’s financial stakes in the British Virgin Islands were not acknowledged until its 2015 tax form.
Lucinda Chappelle, a principal at Jackson Thornton, the public accounting firm in Montgomery, Ala., that prepared the SPLC’s tax forms, said she does not discuss client matters and hung up the phone when the Free Beacon contacted her in an attempt to get the most updated forms from the group in relation to its foreign business dealings.
Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.
“I’ve never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts,” said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. “My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with.”
“It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas,” said Casil. “I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts.”
“It seems extremely unusual for a ‘501(c)(3)’ concentrating upon reducing poverty in the American South to have multiple bank accounts in tax haven nations,” Charles Ortel, a former Wall Street analyst and financial advisor who helped uncover a 2009 financial scandal at General Electric, told the Free Beacon.
In addition, the WFB said, the SPLC “pays lucrative salaries to its top leadership,” using as an example its president and chief executive officer, Richard Cohen, who got $346,218 in base compensation in 2015, and $20,000 more in other reportable compensation and non-taxable benefits.
The minimum amount paid to an officer, director, trustee, or key employee in 2015 was $140,000 in base salary, not including other compensation. The SPLC spent $20 million on salaries throughout the year, but reported spending only $61,000 on legal services in 2015.
Trump gained the White house through a pledge to un-do the Iran deal and a claim that was his inspiration to run for President.
“Dreamers” originally from Ecuador watch Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ remarks on ending the DACA program on a smartphone in Manhattan, September 5, 2017. Credit: Drew Angerer/AFP
“We haven’t eaten in 4 days,” says Rohingya Muslim woman refugee.
