TECHNOLOGY Companies are not only STEALING our Service Jobs – but soon our very LIVES – 300,000 VISA’s to TECH CO’s – an UN-American TRUMP approved move

July 13, 2019

300,000 jobs sucked out of America !!!!!!

These people are NOT Americans and they won’t be.  India is booming and their workers are paid only slightly less and sometimes more, because they are not paying in to Social Security or Health – then the company can actually pay MORE.  THEY are the PRIVILEGED elite in this country and the ONLY ones even MORE elite are ILLEGALs.

I am a TRUMP supporter but this is UN – AMERICAN !!!

is allowing TECH companies to NOT only take our SERVICE JOBS, but they are now SO HUGE that they are the new GLOBAL plantation MASTERS. They are as big as some cities. THEY ARE THE CITIES. THEY are building “MIXED USE” cities. From 1984 to the MATRIX.

FROM TODAY

TECH solutions of TOMORROW -coming soon and in progress-TECH CITIES

Welcome “1984”

AND before you can complete the new PLANTATIONS that create dreams instead of REAL things

The solution will be to be MORE efficient yourself – but the only way to do that will be to plug in to a POD, but don’t worry your still you.  Right?

 

US House passes Bill removing country cap on Green Cards; Indians to benefit

A Green Card allows a person to live and work permanently in the US.

, ET Bureau|

Updated: Jul 11, 2019, 10.00 AM IST

PUNE: Almost 300,000 Indians living in the US are expected to benefit from the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act or HR1044 that was passed by the US House of Representatives yesterday. The act seeks to lift the seven per cent country cap on Greencards and INdians would be the biggest beneficiaries of such a move. The bill on the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act or HR 1044 increases the per-country cap on family-based immigrant visas from seven per cent of the total number of visas available that year to 15 per cent and eliminates the seven per cent cap for employment-based immigrant visas. The bill, which was supported by both Republicans and Democrats still needs to be passed by the Senate before President Donald Trump can sign it into law.

“Prima facie, it may seem like a positive decision for Indian tech workers as it will reduce the waiting period for those with pending green card applications. However, the long-term impact will be negligible.

Indian IT companies face H-1B rejection rate of 20%-40% compared to 1% for American companies. The ‘Buy American, Hire American’ policy has resulted in numerous legal and administrative changes aimed at discouraging Indian tech workers’ immigration,” said Vivek Tandon, founder, E5 BRICS.

The bill has been criticised on the grounds of being beneficial mainly to Big Tech and Indian outsourcers, and to Indian and Chinese immigrants at the cost of other nationalities and professions. Some opponents of the bill said that it would benefit ‘low-wage Indian graduates and take jobs away from middle class American graduates.

In a statement, the Centre for Immigration Studies said, “Under current rules, citizens of India are getting about 25% of all the professional employment green cards each year. If this bill becomes law citizens of India will get more than 90% of the professional employment green cards, according to USCIS – for at least the next 10 years. Green cards would be unavailable to applicants from all other parts of the world (and many other occupations) for at least a decade.”

The bill also establishes transition rules for employment-based visas from FY 2020-22 by reserving a percentage of EB-2 (workers with advanced degrees or exceptional ability), EB-3 (skilled and other workers), and EB-5 (investors) visas for individuals not from the two countries with the largest number of recipients of such visas.


Alabama abortion advocate says the quiet part out loud – “some kids….” – A Nazi was less abrasive

May 7, 2019

Alabama abortion advocate says the quiet part out loud

“some kids…

Alabama abortion advocate says the quiet part out loud

Alabama state Rep. John Rogers, a Democrat, had a few choice comments last week about abortion — the very sort of comments that abortion’s defenders usually know to keep to themselves.

“I’m not about to be a male telling a woman what to do with her body,” Rogers said in the midst of a debate over a bill that would restrict abortion to cases where it could prevent a serious health risk for the mother. “You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.”

This seems like a bizarre way to describe the value of a child’s life, as if no one has ever risen above oppressionpoverty or an unstable family situation to do something great in life. Rogers and the millions who think like him believe implicitly that poor or adopted children must be incapable of happiness just because some grown-ups decided it is so. Not only that, but Rogers seems to think they’re all going to become murderers headed for execution.

It is also surreal to hear Rogers, a prominent black lawmaker for nearly 40 years now, utter the same ugly rationalizations that white liberals use in private to justify the vastly disproportionate abortion of minority children. If not for abortion, there would be as many as 19 million more black people in the United States today — almost 50% more than there are currently. That’s a shocking number.

But then, Rogers was just warming up — after all, there were more people to offend.

“Some parents can’t handle a child with problems,” he went on. “It could be retarded. It might have no arms and no legs.” He also said, with a facetious note, “I may bring a bill to force all men to have vasectomies. That would end this whole debate. There would be no more abortions and eventually no more voters.”

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/alabama-abortion-advocate-says-the-quiet-part-out-loud


The MEDIA is antisemitic, and EVIL, who LIE about the RIGHT

May 4, 2019

A blatant LIE and yet the NYT is in your face with this crap

 

and then they double down on stupid

View image on Twitter

https://txlady706.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/nyt-becomes-hitler-propaganda-but-hitler-is-now-americas-democrats/

Remember who created the KKK and who HITLER went to for advice

Liberal Media Shamelessly Blames Rise of Anti-Semitism on Trump and the Right

Written by  

Despite the multiple examples of anti-Semitic attacks — some verbal, some violent — upon Jews in America and in Europe from either extremist Muslims, leftists, or some who are both leftist and Muslim, like Congressman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), many in the left-leaning media have chosen to blame everyone else, instead, including President Donald Trump.

Newsweek even ran an opinion piece last week entitled “Anti-Semitism in Trump’s America Now Deadlier Than It was in Russia.” Time magazine chose to interview and favorably pass along the views of a University College, London, professor, Michael Berkowitz, who blamed anti-Semitic attacks in the United States on the “combination of a gun culture, conspiracy theories, the extreme right-wing and white supremacy.” Berkowitz has chosen to blame those on the Right for these attacks, citing “anti-Semitic conspiracies.”

Whatever the source of the rising tide of violent acts against Jews, it is a documented fact. The Kantor Center has recorded an astounding 70-percent increase in physical assaults on Jews in Germany. Anti-Semitism has a long, ugly history, but Jews have historically found a refuge in the United States, dating back to colonial days when large numbers settled in places such as Newport, Rhode Island, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In 1790, George Washington wrote a favorable letter to the Jews of Newport, and American Jews celebrated the passage of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment the following year. While American Jews have faced some discrimination focused upon their Jewishness, it has been much rarer than what the Jews have faced in Europe and the Middle East — and certainly much less severe.

But in October of last year, a terrorist burst into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and murdered 11 during a Saturday morning service. Then, on the last day of Passover this year, another attack took place at a synagogue near San Diego — the Chabad of Poway. This time one person was killed, and three were wounded. After that deadly assault, many insinuated that President Trump was somehow responsible for creating an environment of anti-Semitism in the United States.

Blaming Donald Trump, as the Newsweek op-ed did, for the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States is particularly unfair. Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are both very prominent persons within his administration, and they are both Jewish. It was Trump who finally obeyed a directive from Congress, passed during the Clinton administration, to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He has openly and repeatedly voiced support for both the Jewish people and the state of Israel.

In the recent California synagogue attack, Yisroel Goldstein, a rabbi, was one of four worshippers attacked by a gunman during a Saturday service. Goldstein lost an index finger in the attack. He told reporters on Sunday that President Trump called him to offer his condolences on behalf of the American people. Goldstein said of the Trump call, “We spoke about the moment of silence. And he spoke of his love of peace and Judaism and Israel. He was just so comforting. I’m really grateful to our president for taking the time and share with us his comfort and consolation.”

Yet, the Left blames the Right — with special venom for Trump — in the recent rise in anti-Semitic violence and rhetoric in the United States.

The truth is that anti-Semitism has a long, sad history. What is particularly disappointing is that many of the recent left-wing insults against the Jews have been either defended, excused, or covered up by mainstream-media outlets, and socialists such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

In the past, the same type of leftist attacks played out. Jesse Jackson, during his 1984 run for president, called New York City “Hymie Town.” Karl Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto, was a strong atheist who argued that the Jews had corrupted Christianity.

“What is the worldly cult of the Jews?” Marx asked, answering, “Huckstering. What is his world god? Money.” He even wrote an anti-Semitic tract, A World Without Jews. Another time, he complained that a town was “full of Jews and fleas.” His words sound quite similar to the anti-Semitic rantings of Louis Farrakhan’s comparison of Jews to termites — something any homeowner wants exterminated.

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin used rival Leon Trotsky’s ethnic Jewishness against him in their power struggle, and when he was able to, purged practically all Jews from the top echelons of the communist dictatorship. In England, Fabian Socialists George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and others were notorious anti-Semites. Shaw said he viewed the Jews as the “real enemy,” dismissing them as an “oriental parasite.” (For more on the Left’s historic hatred of the Jews, see my March 4, 2019 article in The New American, “The Continuing Scourge of Anti-Semitism.”)

Even history’s most infamous anti-Semite, Adolf Hitler, was a man of the Left, not the Right. Hitler’s political party, was the National Socialist Party — Nazi is just the shortened form. It would be much like calling the Communist Party the Commie Party. It should never be forgotten that the Nazis were strongly anti-Semitic, but also it should also never be forgotten that they were socialist, not conservative.

This effort to shift the blame from actual anti-Semites, such as Representative Omar and her leftist allies, to President Trump is certainly despicable. But it does illustrate how willing many on the Left are to libel their opposition on the Right, in order to achieve their nefarious goals.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/32188-liberal-media-shamelessly-blames-rise-of-anti-semitism-on-trump-and-the-right


Black abortion denial is being argued as akin to enslavement – What?

April 15, 2019

Ohio Democrat Drafts Amendment Seeking To Make Black Babies Exempt From Pro-Life Law

Profile of a baby girl

A female Democrat state representative from Ohio, Rep. Janine Boyd, drafted an amendment last week seeking to have black babies exempted from pro-life legislation dubbed the “heartbeat bill,” which bars babies with detectable heartbeats (around six weeks gestation) from being killed via abortion

As reported by LifeNews, Boyd’s bill “would have given an exemption to African American women to abort their unborn babies for any reason up to the state’s current abortion limit, 20 weeks.”

Ironically, Boyd “likened restrictions on abortion to slavery as she urged her fellow lawmakers to support the measure,” the outlet noted.

“Black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves,” argued the Democrat. “Our country is not far enough beyond our history to legislate as if it is.”

Thankfully, Amendment 0291 failed, and the heartbeat bill was signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine on Friday.

Former Planned Parenthood executive turned pro-life advocate Abby Johnson ripped Boyd’s targeted amendment, snarking that “apparently a 38% national abortion rate in the African-American community isn’t enough.”

“A female, African-American democratic state representative from Ohio presented this amendment to the Ohio Heartbeat bill. This amendment would have made an exception for African-American babies…because apparently a 38% national abortion rate in the African-American community isn’t enough,” posted Johnson to Facebook. “The amendment was struck down 11-7.”

“To reference owning humans as a defense of dismembering them is moral myopia. If it is wrong to own humans, it is also wrong to intentionally kill them,” said pro-life group Created Equal president Mark Harrington, according to LifeNews.

“Referencing abortion to avoid consigning children to slavery, she seems to suggest black children today should likewise not be born—which is exactly the purpose of her amendment,” Harrington continued. “Every human being is valuable regardless of the color of his or her skin. To suggest that only black babies should be killed in Ohio is shocking racism not befitting of a representative of the Ohio House.”

Black babies are disproportionately victimized by abortion in the United States. As noted by Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley, “black women terminate pregnancies at far higher rates than other women,” nationally. “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population,” said Riley.

“The little discussed flip side of ‘reproductive freedom’ is that abortion deaths far exceed those via cancer, violent crime, heart disease, AIDS and accidents,” he explained. “Racism, poverty and lack of access to health care are the typical explanations for these disparities. But black women have much higher abortion rates even after you control for income. Moreover, other low-income ethnic minorities who experience discrimination, such as Hispanics, abort at rates much closer to white women than black women.”

Additionally, looking at the reality that most Planned Parenthood clinics are locatedin urban areas, and Boyd’s amendment as examples, one could surmise that black babies in the womb are being targeted.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45999/ohio-democrat-creates-amendment-giving-black-amanda-prestigiacomo


bizpacreview -Candace Owens obliterates ‘stunned’ Dems at hate crimes hearings….

April 9, 2019

Candace Owens obliterates ‘stunned’ Dems at hate crimes hearings, shuts down Ted Lieu’s stunt like a boss

Candace Owens, communications director for Turning Point USA, was invited by Republicans to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on hate crimes Tuesday and things didn’t get off to exactly the start the Democrat-led panel may have hoped for.

In her opening statement, Owens was loaded for bear and she blasted the Democrat Party and their media allies, who she said don’t tell the truth about her because she doesn’t “fit the stereotype of what they like to see in black people.”

Flanked by her 75-year-old grandfather, Owens eviscerated the party fond of calling others racist, dismantling their narrative right before their eyes.

“My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated south,” she said. “He grew up in an America where words like ‘racism’ and white nationalism’ held real meaning under the Democratic Party’s Jim Crow laws.”

“My grandfather’s first job was given to him when he was 5-years-old and his job was to lay tobacco out to dry in an attic in the South,” Owens continued. “My grandfather has picked cotton and he has also had experiences with the Democrat terrorist organization of that time, the Ku Klux Klan.”

Explaining that she grew up in her grandfathers’ home, she told the committee that he never once told her she couldn’t do something because of her skin color, nor did he hold a gripe against the white man.

“I was simply taught to never view myself as a victim because of my heritage,” said Owens.

She continued to rip at the very fabric of today’s Democratic Party.

“There isn’t a single adult today that in good conscience can make the argument that America is a more racist or a more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up,” Owens said. “Yet, we’re hearing these words sent around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared.”

She would go on to say the hearing “is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it’s about fear-mongering, power and control,” adding that “the goal here is to scare blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims” so Democrats can silence dissent and regain control of government.

“White supremacy, racism, white nationalism, words that once held real meaning, have now become nothing more than election strategies,” Owens declared.

The statement appeared to have the desired result on the opposition:

To be certain that Owens was lethally effective, she was trending on Twitter as the Kool-Aid drinking left whipped themselves into a lather as they launched into full assault mode:


Obama’s misstep – Israel’s ’67 borders would cripple defense and peace – Why suggest it then?

May 24, 2011

I believe that Obama’s goal is the Muslim goal primarily.  He is a Communist secondarily.  He’s an anti Colonialist, as defined by the African definition.  If one is anti – colonialist, then one is against the West and ALL that the WEST represents. This, indeed, means anti – Jewish and Christian, anti- Capitalist and anti – Socialist, this further means anti – Capitalist.  This leave Theocracy and nothing else.  THIS is OBAMA.

This also means that a Caliphate across the ME, would not be objectionable to him.  He is after all a TRUE son to Africa, not America.  Regardless of his birth place, he is African.  He’s SAID so.

Obama’s diversionary tactics

By Caroline B. Glick

What did the president wish to accomplish by purposely starting an ugly fight with the prime minister this past weekend? 

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | As the Washington Post pointed out on Friday, US President Barack Obama purposely provoked the current fight with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He knew full well that Netanyahu does not back the Palestinian formulation that negotiations with Israel must be based on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, or what are wrongly referred to as the 1967 lines. In the days leading up to Obama’s speech last Thursday, Israel registered explicit, repeated requests that he not adopt the Palestinian position that negotiations should be based on those lines.

And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared Thursday: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama’s actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama’s provocation.

The question is why would Obama act as he did? What did he wish to accomplish by purposely starting such an ugly fight with Netanyahu?

Probably the best way to figure out what Obama wished to accomplish is to consider what he did accomplish, because the two are undoubtedly related.

ON MAY 4, two weeks before Obama gave his speech, Fatah and Hamas signed a unity agreement. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like its fellow Brotherhood satellite al-Qaida, Hamas shares the Brotherhood’s ideology of global jihad, the destruction of Western civilization and the establishment of a global caliphate. Also like al-Qaida, it is a terrorist organization which, since its establishment in 1987 has murdered more than a thousand Israelis.

In 2005, Hamas subcontracted itself out to the Iranian regime. Since then, its men have been trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and by Hezbollah. Hamas maintains operational ties with both outfits and receives most of its weapons and significant funding from Iran.

The agreement between Fatah and Hamas makes Hamas a partner in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also paves the way for Hamas to win the planned Palestinian legislative and presidential elections that are scheduled for September just after the UN General Assembly is scheduled to endorse Palestinian statehood. It also sets the conditions for Hamas to integrate its forces and eventually take over the UStrained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria and to join the PLO.

The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama’s policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations’ refusal to “put light” between the US and Israel, and Israel’s unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War.

The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations’ support for Israel or with Israel’s size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel’s destruction.

Forcing Israel into indefensible boundaries, (which as Netanyahu explained to Obama at the White House on Friday, “were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive for them,”), will not advance the cause of peace. It will advance the Palestinians’ goal of destroying Israel.

Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies.

And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal.

By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel’s size again the issue.

Political map of Israel with Westbank and Gaza, Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon

Political map of Israel with Westbank and Gaza, Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon

The Hamas-Fatah unity deal actually demonstrates that not only is Israel’s size not the cause of the conflict, it is the main reason that Israelis and Palestinians live in relative peace.

Israel’s control over Judea and Samaria and east Jerusalem, and with them, its ability to ward off invasion and attacks on its major cities is what has prevented wars. If Israel were more vulnerable, the de facto Palestinian terror state would not be weighing whether or not to begin a new terror war as its leaders from Fatah and Hamas are doing today. It would be waging a continuous campaign of terror whose clear aim is Israel’s destruction for again, as Netanyahu said the 1949 armistice lines make war an attractive option for Israel’s enemies.

BY PICKING a fight with Netanyahu, since Thursday, no one could have possibly noted this basic truth because the false issue of Israel’s control over these areas — that is, Israel’s size — has dominated the global discourse on the Middle East.

Obama would never have been able to create his diversion from the unwelcome fact of Palestinian duplicity and rejectionism, to imaginary problem with the size of Israel without the enthusiastic support given to him by the Israeli Left.

Led by opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Left responded to Obama’s full-scale assault on Israel’s legitimacy by launching a full-scale partisan assault on Netanyahu. Rather than back Netanyahu as he fights for the country’s future, Livni called for him to resign and said that he was wrecking Israel’s ties with the US. In so doing, the Left provided crucial support for Obama’s move to maintain his phony anti- Israel paradigm for Middle East policymaking in the face of the Palestinian unity deal’s repudiation of that model.

The Left’s assault on Netanyahu is not the only way it has enabled Obama to maintain his pro-Palestinian policies in the face of the Palestinians’ embrace of terror and war. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama argued that Israel needs to surrender its defensible boundaries because the Palestinians are about to demographically challenge Israel’s Jewish majority.

As Obama put it, “The number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.”

The demographic time bomb story is a Palestinian fabrication. In 1997, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published a falsified Palestinian census that inflated Palestinian population data by 50 percent. The Israeli Left adopted this fake report as its own when Palestinian terrorism and political warfare convinced the majority of Israelis that it was unwise to give them any more land and that the peace process was a lie.

Since 2004, repeated, in-depth studies of Jewish and Arab birthrates and immigration/ emigration statistics west of the Jordan River undertaken by independent researchers have shown that the demographic time bomb is a dud. In January, the respected demographer Yaakov Faitelson published a study for the Institute of Zionist Strategies in which he definitively put to rest the tale of pending Jewish demographic doom.

As Faitelson demonstrated, Jewish and Arab birthrates are already converging west of the Jordan River at around three children per woman. And whereas the fertility rates of Israeli Arabs, Gazans and residents of Judea and Samaria are all trending downward, Jewish fertility is consistently rising. Moreover, whereas the Arabs are experiencing consistently negative net immigration rates, Jewish net immigration rates are positive and high.

Faitelson based his multiyear projections on current population numbers in which Jews comprise 58.6 percent of the population west of the Jordan River and Muslims constitute 38.7% of the overall population. Non-Jewish, non-Muslim minorities comprise the other 2.7%. Using assessment baselines for Jewish net immigration well below current averages, Faitelson showed that in the years to come, not only will Jews not lose our demographic majority. We will increase it.

Faitelson’s study, like the studies published since 2004 by the American-Israeli Demographic Research Group show that from a demographic perspective, Israel is in the same situation as many Western states today. Namely, it has to develop policies for dealing with an irredentist minority population.

There are many reasonable, liberal policies that Israel can adopt. These include applying the liberal Israeli legal code to Judea and Samaria and enforcing the laws of treason. It is hard to see why the best policy for Israel is to take some of that irredentist population off its books by establishing a terror state ruled by what Netanyahu rightly referred to as “the Israeli equivalent of al-Qaida” on its border.

ALL OF this brings us back to Hamas, terrorism, the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, and Obama’s diversionary moves to facilitate his preservation of a Middle East policy based on a wholly false and discredited assessment of reality and the Israeli Left’s facilitation of Obama’s efforts.

When we realize what Obama is up to, we recognize as well what Netanyahu must do in response.

In his address before Congress on today and in all of his appearances in the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu should have one goal: to bring the focus of debate back where it belongs — on the Palestinians.

At every opportunity, Netanyahu needs to pound the message that the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction is the sole reason that there is no peace.

As for the Israeli Left, it is high time that Netanyahu place the likes of Livni on the defensive. This involves two things. First, Netanyahu must attack the Left’s doomsday demographic projections that are without factual basis and are indeed antithetical to reality. As long as the demographic lie goes unchallenged by Netanyahu, the Left will continue to argue that by refusing to build a terror state on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, Netanyahu is endangering Israel.

Netanyahu deserves a lot of credit for standing up to Obama on Friday. He showed enormous courage in doing so. It was his finest hour to date and polls over the weekend show that the public appreciates and supports him for it. He must build on that success by putting the focus on the truth.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0511/glick052411.php3

Canada – Geert Wilders – May 10 0211, free speech and the double standard for ISLAM – Muslim fundamentalists and the end of LIBERALS agendas

May 13, 2011

Great interview!

Geert Wilders interview Ottawa Canada May 10 2011

By EEYORE | Published: MAY 11, 2011

Last night, Geert Wilders spoke to a packed house in Ottawa Canada where he was greeted, I am proud to say, with a standing ovation as he walked into the room.

James Cohen who works extensively with the Free Thinking Film Society and with the International Free Press Society was able to get an interview with Geert yesterday afternoon at the club where the private reception for Geert took place. I am editing the video of the speeches from the National Arts Centre yesterday evening of Geert, Ezra Levant and Rabbi Jonathan Housman and hope to have those up sometime tomorrow. All were excellent. Meanwhile, here is the interview with Geert.Thanks again to IFPS-Canada as well as Fred Litwin’s Free Thinking Film Society for putting on this event.

Once again, Firefox users will have to click here and watch the interview over at bankoran.com while everyone else should be able to see the video here.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Geert Wilders interview Ottawa Canada May 10 2011, posted with vodpod

Interview with Geert Wilders. Ottawa May 10th 2011 from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.

This entry was posted in CanadaFree Thinking Film SocietyFree Thinking Films,freedom of speechFreedomsGeert WildersIslam in EuropeIslam in the Americas,The NetherlandsWest fights back. Bookmark the permalinkPost a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

%d bloggers like this: