VIDEO Berkeley Hit with Lawsuit Over Attempt to Silence Ann Coulter – Shadowy Soros Behind The Anti-Trump Riots

Berkeley Hit with Lawsuit Over Attempt to Silence Ann Coulter

Conservative orgs sue university for succumbing to ‘demands of a faceless, rabid, off-campus mob’

24 April 2017 by Kathryn Blackhurst 

The Berkeley College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation filed a lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, Monday over the cancellation of a scheduled event with conservative commentator Ann Coulter — the college cited threats of violence in the decision to cancel.

The planned event with Coulter, originally slated for April 27, caused an uproar among liberal students and radical progressive activists living in the left-wing Berkeley community.

“Defendants freely admit that they have permitted the demands of a faceless, rabid, off-campus mob to dictate what speech is permitted at the center of campus during prime time.”

The plaintiffs say they are suing Berkeley for its “discriminatory application of a policy to restrict conservative speech on the UC Berkeley campus, in violation of YAF and BCR’s constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection under law.”

After Berkeley officials initially cancelled the event, the conservative commentator vowed to speak at the original time and locations regardless. In response, Berkeley issued Coulter an alternative date, May 2. Coulter rejected the new date , which would take place during finals week.

“Our lawsuit against Berkeley was just filed. Demands appropriate & safe venue for my speech THIS THURSDAY + damages,” Coulter tweeted Monday, including a link to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit noted Berkeley was “once known as the ‘birthplace of the Free Speech Movement,'” but has now opted “to restrict and stifle the free speech of conservative students whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy.”

“Though UC Berkeley promises its students an environment that promotes free debate and the free exchange of ideas, it had breached this promise through the repressive actions of University administrators and campus police … simply because that expression may anger or offend students, UC Berkeley administrators, and/or community members who do not share Plaintiffs’ viewpoints,” the lawsuit read.

The lawsuit further slammed the reasons given by campus administrators for canceling the event: the threat of violence from leftist radicals.

“Defendants freely admit that they have permitted the demands of a a faceless, rabid, off-campus mob to dictate what speech is permitted at the center of campus during prime time, and which speech may be marginalized, burdened, and regulated out of its very existence by this unlawful heckler’s veto,” the lawsuit continued.

The plaintiffs also noted that Berkeley has a recent history of canceling or moving scheduled speeches from high-profile conservative speakers, including the cancellation in February of controversial former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech when dozens of black-clad “antifa” protesters reacted violently, destroyed property and setting fires.

The suit also acknowledged the cancelled appearance of conservative writer David Horowitz after imposing curfew and venue restrictions on his visit to campus. The plaintiffs accuse the Berkeley officials of adopting an “unwritten policy regarding high-profile speakers” that actively discriminates against conservative voices.

This festering culture of leftist intolerance and the inability to afford conservatives the right to freedom of speech naturally has drawn widespread criticism from the right. However, former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) added his voice to the mix when he condemned the Berkeley agitators and asked them to reconsider.

“I don’t like this. I don’t like it,” Sanders told The Huffington Post following a rally Thursday night. “Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous ― to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.”

“To me, it’s a sign of intellectual weakness,” Sanders continued. “If you can’t ask Ann Coulter in a polite way questions which expose the weakness of her arguments, if all you can do is boo, or shut her down, or prevent her from coming, what does that tell the world?”

“What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions,” Sanders said. “Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”

The Berkeley area has been witness to repeated acts of violence against supporters of President Donald Trump. The latest incident occurred April 15 when left-wing agitators attacked Trump supporters at a “Patriots Day” rally in the city. Another incident occurred March 4 when Trump supporters were beaten and bloodied during a “March 4 Trump” rally.

The Shadowy Extremist Group Behind the Anti-Trump Riots

Antifa flies under the radar despite escalating acts of violence against president’s supporters

24 April 2017 by Edmund Kozak 

On April 15, a pro-Trump, pro-free-speech rally at University of California, Berkeley, descended into violent mayhem after radical far-leftists — members of the organization Antifa — began to attack the peacefully assembled crowd.

[Soros funded] Antifa, which stands for “anti-fascist action,” is a network of loosely affiliated far-left anarchist and communist groups that orchestrate violent protests and attacks on populists, conservatives, and anyone else its members deem to be “fascists” or “Nazis.”

“Anyone who tries to hold any sort of right-wing event literally gets beat up by militant communists in the street.”

Antifa was formed originally in Germany in the 1980s, its members taking the name of the communist paramilitary groups that engaged the Nazis in street-fighting in the 1930s. It now has active cells across the world, including in Germany, the U.S., Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Czechia, and France.

“Anyone who tries to hold any sort of right-wing event literally gets beat up by militant communists in the street,” said independent journalist Lauren Southern, who was present at one of the pro-Trump Berkeley rallies, in a video taken immediately following the violence.

Harrowing video footage taken by Southern’s crew showed Antifa street fighters throwing bricks and M-80 explosives into the crowd, as well as assaulting Trump supporters. Other footage released by someone present at the event showed one Antifa thug hit a Trump supporter over the head with a bicycle chain and lock.

But the Trump supporters and free speech activists — acting fully in self-defense — were able to hold their ground and drive back their Antifa attackers. In response Antifa members have only vowed to intensify their violence.

“Not getting disarmed is a big part of the problem, yes, but we need more than flags and bats,” wrote one in the r/anarchism subreddit community page.

Related: ‘Specialized’ Foreign Worker Makes Less Than Minimum Wage

“We need to take notes from the John Brown Gun Club and get firearms and training. I know getting firearms in states and cities we have a presence in is usually a hassle, but even handguns would help,” the would-be revolutionary wrote.

“It would certainly put a psychological element in while holding fash [fascists] back. Who do you think a fascist is more afraid of? People with only flags and bats, or people with flags, bats, and guns?” he wrote.

But some Antifa members have clearly had the same thought — that “flags and bats” simply aren’t enough. Indeed the Antifa United webstore temporarily sold an Antifa-branded concealed credit-card knife.

The Department of State, through U.S. Code Title 22, Chapter 38, defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

Antifa increasingly could plausibly fit that definition.

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Antifa could also reasonably meet those conditions.

The U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies” and notes that terrorism “is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.”

Yes, Antifa fits that definition, too.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AUDIO Congressmen: Trumps Gets A in first 100 Days – Trump’s Big Mistake Was Trusting Congress

Exclusive—Rep. Mark Meadows on President Trump’s First 100 Days: ‘I Would Give Him an A’

 25 April 2017 by Sean Moran

Congressman Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, spoke with Breitbart News about his thoughts on President Trump’s first 100 days in office.

Meadows commended the actions of President Trump, grading him an A. He explained, “I think he’s accomplished a lot more than what people in the media allege, and coming from my district, a lot of North Carolina people cheer him for doing what he said what he would do. He’s accomplishing a lot, and he’s not afraid to make mistakes. If I were to give him a rating on his first 100 days, I would give him an A, and that’s even counting a new Supreme Court Justice. He’s signed a number of Congressional Review Acts that would undo significant regulatory schemes. He’s set a historical level of being able to repeal actual rules that affects jobs, especially for those in farming and mining; it’s actual progress. And that’s only the first 100 days. Most Americans believe that it will only get better day after day.”

He went on to say, “He’s put America first and has a strong national security emphasis where most Americans will jump up and say it’s about time. They’re tired of losing their jobs overseas, and they’re tired of being politically correct and accepting refugees, where at times those refugees have the potential of creating real harm in our communities. He’s been bold. And he’s been lauded by millions of Americans who cheer that there’s a man in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who remembers about the forgotten man. And indeed he’s done that.”

Meadows told Breitbart News that President Trump has a work ethic beyond any measure: “I think for a president that came from a non-political background, he quickly learned how Congress works. I think there’s been a learning curve for the president. Here’s a personal story: I don’t know if I have ever been as impressed with a CEO, or a president, who is getting as involved in negotiating the finer details of national security, health care, the economy, or tax reform, to the extent that he’s been willing to get on the phone at midnight and then the next morning at 6:30 a.m. If the American people understood how engaged this president is, and how engaged he is at making his campaign promises fulfilled, the American people would be nothing short of amazed. He works me to death, and I’m a member of Congress. I cannot imagine how hard he works his staff at the White House.”

Continuing, Meadows said, “I know a lot of people will criticize him for the healthcare repeal, when, in actuality, it took Obamacare 17 months to pass, where we will repeal the majority of Obamacare in 17 weeks, and you have to put it in perspective. Everyone has high expectations for draining the swamp; they think it can be done overnight, and he is very methodical and will continue to do so in the next 100 days.”

“I don’t think it is reported much,” Meadows said, “but in the White House, there is a war room with all of his campaign promises, and he goes around checking off his campaign promises to make sure he keeps all of his campaign promises. It is apparent he keeps it very seriously and makes sure we do it correctly.”

The Freedom Caucus chairman believes that the president and Congress can accomplish even more in the next 100 days. He said, “I do believe that we need to start on border security. We need a wall or a sophisticated fence, as long as it secures our border. I want him to continue to work with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the sanctuary city issue and make sure our cities are secure. I am sure we will have tax reform set out and well in place for the next 100 days. Once we get the economy going and continue to make it open for business for manufacturing, we will start to see the streamlining of the federal government to make sure it is efficient and accountable to the American people. I know he is serious about it, and I know we can restore the American people’s faith in our government.”

Meadows then shared, “I think that many of the battles between Congress and the White House are overstated and that sometimes we criticize because we have great expectations that things will change faster than they have. The other part is that we need to put bills on his desk. The president is very willing to use his pen to sign bills, but we need to make the 50-60 hours a week legislating to make sure that we can get things done. It is incumbent on us in the House and the Senate. We need to legislate expeditiously.”

The North Carolina congressman criticized Democrats for the slow pace of confirming Trump’s administration officials and said that in the next 100 days, we will see Obamacare repealed: “I think that we still have a slow pace of confirmations in the Trump administration, and many of our Democrat colleagues should be ashamed of the slow pace at which they approve those nominees. This is not a president that makes excuses and still gets stuff done despite everything. I think you will be surprised how much we will get in the following weeks.”

“I fully expect,” he added, “that we will repeal most aspects of Obamacare by the end of May. It may have been a deterrent in the first 100 days, but by the end of the first 120 days or so, it will be seen as a significant accomplishment. It’s not how you start; it’s how you finish, as the as song used to say. We will have an excellent finish.”

In summary of his thoughts on Trump’s first 100 days, Meadows said, “I’m not tired of winning yet. Let’s keep winning! I love to be exhausted on winning!”

Rep. Gohmert on First 100 Days: Trump’s Big Mistake Was Trusting Congress

 25 April 2017 by Dan Riehl

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) covered several topics with Breitbart News Radio SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Tuesday, including the possibility of a government shutdown, the border wall, and how Trump has done in his first 100 days.

Regarding the later, said Gohmert, “It goes back to the Animal House line, “Well, you messed up. You trusted us,” referring to Trump trusting in Congress.

Gohmert went on, “He has learned that when it comes to bills, he will probably need to be more hands on and make sure that he gets the bill that he wants – the things that he wants done – put actually into the law. This Obamacare bill, it doesn’t repeal as much of Obamacare as we did two years ago and that’s after the people have spoken and given us both houses and the presidency.”

Added Gohmert, ” We’re supposed to trust the government, Health and Human Services, and my friend Tom Price to do the repeal for us. well, Tom will do all he can. But there’s a likelihood there’ll be court action. That’s something that really should have been repealed by Congress. We did most of the repeal two yeats ago. I just didn’t understand why we didn’t do at least that much. So, I really think that you will see the lessons learned from Obamacare used in pushing forward a tax bill….”

More discussion, including on Trump’s first 100 days, can be heard below.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO France Relives Peru’s 2016 Choice: Populist Hardliner or Milquetoast Technocrat – Le Pen Steps Down As Party Leader


France Relives Peru’s 2016 Choice Between Populist Hardliner and Milquetoast Technocrat

 25 Apr 2017 by Frances Martel

On Sunday, French voters cast both the left and right establishment parties of their country out of the running for the presidency, opting insteadfor a choice between the populist right and a former socialist now selling himself as the safe bet.

On May 7, National Front leader Marine Le Pen will face off against Emmanuel Macron, a former finance minister who left his Socialist Party for a coalition he calls “En Marche!”, and a rebrand as the “French Obama.” On the table are a stable economic, the complete eradication of terrorism, and a fight for the heart of the nation.

If this run-off feels familiar, it is because a similar story played out an ocean away during a 2016 election – not in the United States, but in Peru, where the conservative Keiko Fujimori faced off against center-right career banker Pedro Pablo Kuczynski for the top job.

Peru, like France, has a run-off system that triggers an election between the top two candidates if no presidential contender earns more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round. In 2016 – after five years of left-wing rule under former president Ollanta Humala – Peruvians made clear they wanted to steer the country rightward. Much like France, the leftist candidates failed to gain enough traction to enter the run-off stage, leaving Fujimori and Kuczynski to present competing visions for the country.

In Keiko Fujimori, Peruvians would have elected a politician much like Le Pen. Fujimori’s party, Popular Force, promised support for Christian and conservative pro-family groups, a strong stance on national security and guerrilla warfare, and a commitment to improving conditions for laborers in agriculture and mining, two of the nation’s largest industries. Support for police and investment in building new prison facilities and better equipping law enforcement were key parts of her platform.

While Fujimori’s promises on national security and commitment to social conservatism may have sounded familiar to Peruvian voters around in the 1990s, like Le Pen, Keiko Fujimori crafted a political image and coherent ideology independent of her father’s. Alberto Fujimori ran Peru from 1990 to 2000, winning the nation’s presidency on a populist ticket with little more than a vow to eradicate Marxist terrorism and the catchphrase “Chino para presidente” (“Chinese man for president” – a term of endearment Fujimori warmed to despite being Japanese-Peruvian) on his platform. He later successfully dismantled the deadly Shining Path terrorist group, expanding his popularity greatly before a precipitous fall that led him to his current state, serving a 25-year prison sentence for corruption and alleged human rights abuses. Among his most brazen actions as president, Fujimori usurped legislative power for national security reasons in what was dubbed the “auto-coup” of 1992, which half of Peruvians still consider to have been necessary.

Jean-Marie Le Pen is no Alberto Fujimori, having never served as head of the French state (though he has run into some comparatively minor legal woes, as well). But much as Keiko’s campaign focused on her escape from her father’s shadow, so too has Marine Le Pen crafted her image not merely independent of her father, but on occasion against it. The Front National of 2017 is far more welcoming to LGBT voters and minorities concerned with Islamic violence than its generational predecessor, and Marine Le Pen has arduously worked to craft a party inclusive of all Frenchmen.

Peruvians ultimately voted against their former first lady, opting instead of Kuczynski, a banker with a globalist pedigree including stints at both the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, who developed a reputation as a “prudent economic manager” and dismissed Fujimori as having “no experience in business.” Like Macron, Kuczynski too served as his nation’s finance minister before running for office, though not within a socialist party. Unlike Macron, Kuczynski ran a campaign in a country that, thanks to Alberto Fujimori, sees terrorism as part of its past, while Macron appears to accept it as part of France’s future. Kuczynski nonetheless appeared softer on terrorism than his rival for what he did during the heyday of the Shining Path: he left the country. “I lived the beginning of the terror as a minister. They hung me in effigy [in Lima] and then I left Peru because it was a dangerous place,” he confessed during the campaign.

Like all comparisons, this one, too, is not perfect – for one, Macron has been historically far to the left of Kuczynski. Peru is also not a nation in which millions feel the need to restore a national identity in the face of a global refugee crisis, as evidenced by Fujimori’s and Kuczynski’s Japanese and German heritage, respectively. France, in contrast, lacks the history of animosity towards the World Bank and IMF that triggered resulting hyperinflation and economic collapse in late 1980s/early 1990s Peru, adding favorability to a candidate on friendly terms with these institutions.

The Peruvian election ultimately became a referendum on the legacy of the Fujimori family, driving a wave of leftist voters to support the center-right banker known as “PPK.” Even with this unorthodox voting coalition, Kuczynski barely won the election, with 50.122 percent of the vote compared to Fujimori’s 49.878 percent. The latest surveys out of France put Macron much farther ahead of Le Pen than that; Reuters claims Macron would have a whopping 28-percent lead if the election were held today. Yet much can happen between today and May 7, and Macron cannot bank on the election becoming a referendum on Le Pen the way the left framed the election of Kuczynski – not after “Brexit,” not after America’s choice of President Donald Trump over his standard issue rivals, and certainly not as a seemingly ceaseless wave of terrorism continues to crash over the nation’s key urban areas.

Marine Le Pen Stands Down as Front National Leader

 25 April 2017 by Nick Hallett

French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has temporarily stood down as leader of the Front National party to focus on the upcoming election, AP reports.

The move, which has taken observers by surprise, appears to be an attempt to broaden her appeal against independent rival Emmanuel Macron and increase the number of voters who will likely back her in next month’s runoff.

Ms Le Pen announced Monday evening: “Tonight, I am no longer the president of the National Front. I am the presidential candidate.

“I will feel more free, and above partisan considerations.”

In the first round of voting, independent former Socialist Macron scored 23.9 per cent of the vote, against Ms Le Pen’s 21.4 per cent, putting them both through to the second round.

After Sunday’s vote, France’s political establishment has rallied around Mr Macron, urging voters to choose him over Ms Le Len. He has been able to present himself as an outsider by standing as an independent, despite his establishment backing.

The now former Front National leader will user her new independence to challenge him and attract new voters to her who may have been put off by her party.

Listen: Oliver Lane discusses Marine Le Pen’s decision to step down and the post-election riots in Paris on the Breitbart Daily Show:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Trump At Holocaust Event – What People Don’t Know About the Holocaust – The One Lesson of the Holocaust

What People Don’t Know (but Think They Do) About the Holocaust

April 24, 2017 by Leah Jessen


Nine historical facts to remember about the Nazis’ mass murder of Jews at this most solemn time of year

Millions of people around the world are remembering the outrageous mass murders that took place decades ago under Adolf Hitler’s reign in Germany. Holocaust Remembrance Day began on Sunday night, April 23, and concludes Monday the 24th at sundown. In Hebrew, the day is called Yom Hashoah.

“I think the important thing to understand about this cataclysmic event is that it happened in the heart of Europe,” Sara Bloomfield, the director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., said in a video produced by the museum.

“Germany was respected around the world for its leading scientists, its physicians, its theologians,” Bloomfield said. “It was a very civilized, advanced country. It was a young democracy, but it was a democracy. And yet it descended not only into social collapse but world war and eventually mass murder.”

Here are nine things to remember about the Holocaust genocide.

1.) The Holocaust lasted from January 1933 to May 1945.

Related: Six Key Facts About the Important Passover Holiday

2.) The Nazis murdered approximately 11 million men, women and children. About six million of those murdered were of Jewish ancestry. Other groups murdered included gay people, priests, gypsies, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

3.) Some of those killed during the Holocaust were professing Jewish Christians. “During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many Jews turned to Jesus as Jewish redeemer and the universal savior, intermarrying with non-Jews, and assimilating into the German nation,” Judith Rood wrote on

4.) “When Allied troops entered the concentration camps, they discovered piles of corpses, bones, and human ashes — testimony to Nazi mass murder,” according to the website of the United State Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Jewish Population Lost in the Holocaust

5.) Jews who fled Germany caused a refugee crisis in Europe. “President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened a conference in Evian, France, in July 1938,” according to the Holocaust museum. “Despite the participation of delegates from 32 countries, including the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, and Australia, only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept additional refugees.”

6.) “Every arm of the government played a role” in the annihilation of the Jewish people, according to It adds: “Parish churches provided the birth records of the Jews. The Finance Ministry took Jewish wealth and property. Universities researched more efficient ways to murder. And government transportation bureaus paid for the trains that carried the Jews to their death.”

Related: Charity Connects the Young and Old to Improve Jewish Lives

 7.) Soviet troops first liberated the Nazi concentration camps near Lubin, Poland, in July 1944. “Surprised by the rapid Soviet advance, the Germans attempted to hide the evidence of mass murder by demolishing the camp,” the Holocaust museum website says. “Camp staff set fire to the large crematorium used to burn bodies of murdered prisoners, but in the hasty evacuation the gas chambers were left standing.”


8.) Pregnant woman were sentenced to death in concentration camps. “Miriam Rosenthal was four months pregnant, starving, bone-tired, cold, filthy and afraid when an SS officer in big black boots and a crisp uniform appeared before the barracks in Auschwitz with a loudspeaker in hand,” the Canadian National Post reported in 2012. “‘All pregnant women line up,’ he barked. ‘Line up, line up — your food portions are being doubled.'”

“Even women who were not pregnant stepped forward,” Miriam Rosenthal told the publication. “I was standing with my younger cousin, but I wouldn’t go.” She and her unborn baby somehow survived — while more than 200 women went to the gas chamber that day, the National Post reported.

9.) At the worst of it, almost 6,000 Jews were gassed each day at Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest killing center, in Poland, according to multiple sources.

It is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel

The One Lesson of the Holocaust

April 24, 2017 By

Yom HaShoah comes and goes. A day for looking back at what has happened and a day for looking away from what will happen.

Millions of dollars have been spent building memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, even as Iran is spending its millions on building another kind of memorial to the Holocaust, in the form of nuclear technology that will be used to finish that piece of history that the Islamic terror state claims never took place.

Millions more are spent, by some of the same groups that claim an interest in Holocaust education, on bringing Muslim migrants to America and Europe to carry out the promise of an Islamic apocalypse in which, as the Hadith states, “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” That is what the Islamic Holocaust looks like. And it’s underway.

A Jew is murdered in France. Another in Jerusalem. And another and another.

The Final Solution, with its immediate extermination of the Jews, has been replaced by the Two State Solution, an intermediate process in which the land on which Jews can live in security is partitioned into smaller and smaller pieces.

The Lebensraum of Islam demands ever more breathing room. And fewer breathing Jews. Israel is carved up into smaller indefensible ghettos. The number of places where the world decides that Jews can be allowed to live, shrink. The rest become “settlers” who must be evicted for the sake of peace. Even if the place they’re “settling” is Jerusalem. The oldest Jewish city on earth.

And this Two State Solution, this intermediate process, has the almost universal backing of the major Jewish organizations who are so very deeply concerned about the Holocaust. It has the backing of the diplomats and politicians who put out canned statements urging that we learn the lessons of the Holocaust. The only lesson they have learned though is that another Holocaust needs better marketing.

Why two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community was still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House

It is comparatively easy to build a memorial. You hire the architect, raise the money, buy the land and then cut the ribbon. It is a much harder thing to do something about the need for those memorials in the first place. That is what learning the lessons of the Holocaust is about.

It is easier to build another memorial than to look into your heart and ask why two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community was still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House… when the lives of millions of Jews were on the line.

From FDR to Obama, American Jewish leaders had two opportunities to stand up to a liberal icon and save Jewish lives. No amount of memorials can disguise the fact that they learned nothing.

The reassurances from American Jewish leaders that Obama meant well, that he will not sell out Israel and that he cares sounded familiar. The American Jewish leaders of the 30’s and 40’s echoed the same sentiments. Even as the St. Louis was turned back and its passengers were sent to the gas chambers, even as every effort made to aid or save Jews from the Holocaust was frustrated and shut down with the active complicity of the liberal American Jewish leadership who were loyal to FDR.

The same people who let millions die went on to light candles and issue their hypocritical sanctimonious statements of mourning for the dead.  More candles have been lit. More memorials have been built. But the lessons of the Holocaust continue to go unlearned.

Regardless of which administration is in office, the Two State Solution and any support for the Islamic terrorists seeking to exterminate the Jews, as they have already exterminated many of the Christians in the region, must be fought. When we fail to do this, then whatever our politics are, we abandon our obligations to the dead and to the living.

The Holocaust did not happen because of intolerance or fascism, but because the Jews lacked the means of defending themselves against it

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the details of how it happened don’t really matter. Had Hitler not come to power, had Germany not turned National Socialist, the Holocaust would have happened anyway. Stalin had one planned too before his death. Had it not been Hitler or Stalin, it would have been someone else. It still might be.

The Holocaust did not happen because of intolerance or fascism, as most liberals would like you to believe. It happened for the same overriding reason that any person or group of people is murdered. Because the Jews lacked the means of defending themselves against it.

There have been two Jewish responses to the Holocaust, on the one hand promoting tolerance and assimilation and on the other hand the State of Israel. Tolerance has done nothing to prevent the hatred and murder of Jews. In many cases it has actually served to promote it.

It is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel

Every Muslim attack in Europe and America can be laid at the door of tolerance. When a Jewish woman is thrown out of a window in Paris or a Rabbi is beaten in Brussels, the true perpetrator is “tolerance”.

The State of Israel stands as the only meaningful response to the Holocaust. Rather than building stone memorials and going back to business as usual, the State of Israel is not only a living future for the Jewish people, it is a response to the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because it could happen to a people who couldn’t defend themselves. The State of Israel with its armies and borders was the best physical defense against it happening again.

Today the two responses to the Holocaust are battling out to the death, Tolerance and Assimilation vs the State of Israel. And the State of Israel is getting the worst of it. The teachers of tolerance blame Israel for the failure of their own ideology, manifest in the rising hatred of Jews around the world. If Israel wouldn’t exist, somehow Jews wouldn’t be hated, their thesis goes. As if Anti-semitism had been discovered lying around in a dustbin sometime after 1948.

But it is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel. The left has pushed Israel to the wall, because it represents the inversion of their ideology, it represents the reality that the best hope of the persecuted is not in multiculturalism or in tolerance classes, but in taking responsibility for their own safety and survival.

LIVE STREAM: President Trump Speaks at U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

LIVE: President Trump Speech at Holocaust Memorial Remembrance Event @ U.S. Capitol

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

United Nations rewrites Balfour Declaration parliamentary debate records

An immediate retraction, correction and apology must be made by the UN Secretariat

United Nations rewrites Balfour Declaration parliamentary debate records

April 24, 2017 By

An official United Nations document published by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat contains a deliberately altered record of a 1922 parliamentary House of Lords debate on the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration—dated 2 November 1917 – called for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people—it being clearly understood that nothing would be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Balfour Declaration was subsequently written into international law

The Balfour Declaration was subsequently written into international law after being incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine on 24 July 1922.

The upcoming centenary of the Balfour Declaration has prompted a concerted international campaign calling on the British Government to apologise for another Government’s decision taken 100 years ago.

Baroness Anelay—Minister of State (Foreign Commonwealth Office) – told the House of Lords on 3 April 2017 that no such apology would be forthcoming.

The UN’s rewriting of Parliamentary debate records actually came to light whilst I was researching the source of a quote appearing in four articles by Stuart Littlewood provocatively headlined

  1. “Who will Finally Heal the “Running Sore in the East”?
  2. “Will the Royal Family Celebrate 100 Years of Shame by Endorsing Israel?”
  3. “Despicable Balfour: A story of betrayal”
  4. “Jeremy Corbyn: the antidote to the Blairite “virus” and Zionist snake-bite”

Bitter opponent of the Balfour Declaration—Lord Sydenham

All four articles contained the following quote purportedly made in 1922 by a bitter opponent of the Balfour Declaration—Lord Sydenham:

“The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country… may never be remedied… What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

My research eventually led to a United Nations Study titled “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1988” – the Foreword stating:

“This study has been prepared by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977.”

This UN Study claimed Lord Sydenham had said:

”… the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country – Arab all around in the hinterland – may never be remedied … what we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

Sourcing this quote to British Hansard – the official record of parliamentary debates.


Deliberately rewriting Hansard

However Hansard records Lord Sydenham actually saying on 21 June 1922:

“What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.

Zionism will fail, the experiment to which the noble Earl referred will fail, but the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country—Arab all round in the hinterland—may never be remedied.”

Deliberately rewriting Hansard raises the distinct possibility there may be other similar such instances in this UN Study. A full investigation by the United Nations Secretariat to discover the reason is urgently required.

An immediate retraction, correction and apology must be made by the UN Secretariat.


Related previous posts on this blog


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Partial Bundy Verdict, First Trial

Bundy trial verdict

The first Bundy trial has ended in a mistrial after finding a federal informant guilty of eight charges and one of the defendants guilty of two lesser charges. The jury was hopelessly deadlocked on sixty more charges, even after federal judge Gloria Navarro sent the jury back to deliberate further.

The case has been hotly contested by their supporters, who say that the men were defending themselves against government agents who assaulted, tazed, and threatened them.

Todd Engel was found guilty on two charges; obstruction of justice, and interstate travel to aid extortion. Greg Burleson, a fellow defendant also revealed to have been working for the federal government as an informant throughout the events at Bundy Ranch, was found guilty on eight charges. According to Maxine Bernstein of and Jenny Wilson of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the jury was “hopelessly deadlocked” on all other charges — including the charge of conspiracy against the United States government. Federal judge Gloria Navarro has reportedly sent the jury back on an Allen charge to deliberate further on the other counts, but to no avail.

On the charges of impeding and injuring a federal officer, the jury could reach no verdict. Greg Burleson, the informant, was the only defendant convicted of assault on a federal officer, as well as threatening. He was also convicted of two counts of “firearm in relation to a crime of violence,” according to the Review-Journal, and interference with interstate commerce by extortion.

The six men on trial in a federal courtroom in Las Vegas, Nevada came from various parts of the country to assist rancher Cliven Bundy and his family with what they saw as a gross abuse of government power.  Eric Parker, Scott Drexler, Todd Engel, and Steven Stewart are all from Idaho, while Richard Lovelein hails from Oklahoma. Greg Burleson, a defendant who was also named during the trial as a long-time government informant, is from Phoenix, Arizona.

This is only the first of three trials expected to come out of the 2014 standoff outside Bunkerville, Nevada. These six men were being tried as gunmen. Eric Parker, labeled by federal agents as the “Bundy sniper,” was “photographed pointing a long gun through a jersey barrier on the Interstate 15 overpass that overlooked the sandy ditch where protesters were face-to-face with federal agents.  Parker is charged with several felonies, including conspiracy against the United States, numerous firearm offenses, and assault of a federal officer.  The other defendants face similar charges; all of them could be sentenced to over one hundred years in prison during the sentencing phase of the trial.  The so-called leaders of the standoff, rancher Cliven Bundy, and his sons, are expected to go on trial in another group slated for a federal court trial in June.

The standoff at Bundy’s ranch was the culmination of a long dispute between the Bundy and the federal government over grazing fees and public land use.  Agents from the Bureau of Land Management rounded up Bundy’s cattle, killing at least six of them.  Liberty-minded folks looking to support Bundy’s stand against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) came from all over the country, resulting in a forty-one-day standoff against BLM officials and other government agents. The stand-off captured the attention of freedom-focused citizens across the nation as violence was anticipated, but peace ultimately prevailed.

While the outnumbered agents finally backed down and released Cliven Bundy’s cattle, federal wheels continued to turn. The men were arrested and jailed until trial — a fifteen-month wait that entailed motions that resulted in a loss of rights concerning a speedy trial.  The court case itself lasted six weeks, with all but two days spent on the prosecution. Marred from the outset by questions from observers and even media outlets that federal Judge Gloria Navarro (an Obama appointee) and the prosecutorial team were engaging in misconduct, the trial has become an ongoing controversy almost as heated as the issues that led up to the standoff itself.

Going forward, the level of media attention in Nevada and other western states could prove to be problematic when it comes to jury selection for the future trials.  And it remains to be seen how the rest of the liberty community out West handles this verdict — and just how the federal government will handle protests and resistance from those who believe this is a case of government overreach.

Leesa K. Donner contributed to this report.

Related previous posts on this post

VIDEO Trump Calls BLM Out For Stealing Ranchers’ Land – FBI Did Not Give Us The Truth At Initial Presser

VIDEO ‘Set up assassination’ alleged in FBI kill shots – Trump Could Put An End to Hillary Once and for All

VIDEO FBI Agents Under Criminal Investigation in LaVoy Finicum Murder

Police, FBI Shooting of LaVoy Finicum, Where Are the Other Videos?

VIDEO They lied: Numerous eyewitness accounts prove FBI edited footage of LaVoy Finicum shooting

VIDEO Lavoy Finicum, The FBI, and Why You’re Missing the Point – Shot 9 TIMES; Stolen 9mm PLANTED By The FBI?

VIDEO Enhanced Video PROOF LaVoy Finicum Murdered, Points Out Agent that Took First Shot at Him

VIDEO Feds Arrest ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Bundy Supporters In Six States

Federal Judge: Cliven Bundy Must Remain in Jail, He is “Lawless and Violent” – Feds Jail Radio Host, Sparking Free Speech Outcry

There’s Something Strange Happening Here… – Know Your Enemy – CLIVEN BUNDY Indicted

VIDEO 68 Warrants for Those Who Stood at Bundy Ranch, Oregon Refuge and Mines? – Last Four

VIDEO Govt Sanctioned Murders of Patriots Continue: Perverts, Traitors & Informants Responsible

VIDEO Truth Behind Federal Land Grabs

VIDEO Nazi Occupation Storm Troopers Control Eastern Oregon – Final Blueprint for the Enslavement

VIDEO Convoy Heads into Oregon Refuge, Including Heavily Armed Vehicles – FBI Sets Up Checkpoints, Surrounds Area

VIDEO Eyewitness: Oregon Militiaman MURDERED By Cops, Shot In Face With Hands Up

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Paris Climate Agreement, 1938 ‘Appeasement’ – ‘March for Science’ God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism

Paris Climate Agreement is Like 1938 Munich Agreement … It’s ‘Appeasement’

April 24, 2017 By Michael W. Chapman

Princeton Physics Professor

William Happer.

(Photo: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia)

During a panel discussion about global warming and the Paris Climate Agreement, Princeton Physics Professor William Happer explained that the Paris Agreement makes no “scientific sense,” would do “enormous harm to many people” if implemented, and is comparable to the 1938 Munich Agreement to appease Nazi Germany.

The panel discussion was on the April 22 edition of CNN’s New Day Weekend, hosted by Victor Blackwell.  During the discussion, Blackwell asked, “The president during the campaign said he would quote/unquote cancel that [Paris Climate Agreement] — has not done it yet. How would you advise the president, if you had his ear, on how to move forward on the Paris Climate Agreement?”

William Happer, an atomic physicist and the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) at Princeton University, answered, “Well, you have to consider many things but on the face of it, it should be cancelled. I can imagine you might want to consider ties with allies, and things like that, that might perhaps make that unadvisable. But I don’t think it makes any scientific sense.”

“It’s just a silly thing, I think,” said Prof. Happer.  “To me, it’s very similar to the [1938] Munich Agreement that Mr. [Neville] Chamberlain signed.”

Panel member Bill Nye, an engineer popularly known as the “Science Guy,” reacted, “Wow. Okay. Everybody here, bear in mind, this may backfire. If you pull out of an international agreement, other countries may establish what are effectively tariffs on U.S.-produced goods and especially services.”

Host Victor Blackwell then said, “So, Mr. Happer, I just want to make sure – you are comparing the Paris Climate Agreement to the appeasement policy?”

Happer, the former director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (1991-93), said, “It’s definitely appeasement. Let me add also, you know that –”

Blackwell interjected,  “How so? I don’t want to jump beyond that. How is this comparable to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler? How is that an appropriate comparison?”

Professor Happer said,  “It is an appropriate comparison because it was a treaty that was not going to do any good. This treaty [Paris Agreement] also will not do any good. Anyone looking at the results of doing what the treaty says, can see that the effect on the Earth’s climate is – even if you take the alarmists’ computer models – trivial.”

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving the 1938 Munich Pact,

which he signed to appease Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.  Chamberlain

called it “peace in our time.” Within a few months, Czechoslovakia was

taken over by the Germans, and in September 1939 the Soviet Union

and Nazi Germany invaded Poland, officialy starting World War II.

“It will not make any difference, and yet it will cause enormous harm to many people,” said Happer.

In addition to his work at Princeton and other institutions, Prof. William Happer is a member of the JASON advisory group, an organization of elite scientists who advise the U.S. government on matters of science and technology.

Climate Depot’s Round Up of Coverage of the alleged ‘March For Science’: Blames GOP for making climate worse

‘March for Science’ invokes God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism

April 24, 2017 By

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Having spent the day in DC on April 22 interviewing the marchers, it struck me about how this is first and foremost a march for endless government funding, ideology and in support of a no dissent policy. (Another new study gives plenty of reason to dissent: New Climate Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’) The Trump administration can help make science great again by resisting these pay up and shut up demands for taxpayer research money.” See:  Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts

Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science?  Happer: “We’ve had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It’s not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma.”—More…

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’


Watch CNN Debate: Bill Nye blows gasket when a real scientist Dr. Will Happer schools him on ‘climate change’

Watch video here


Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: