Friday, November 25, 2016

Fire Intifada? - Sally Zahav

by Sally Zahav

Israel is apparently under attack. Many fires are burning; many neighborhoods have been evacuated throughout northern and central Israel.

Israel often experiences periods of dry, easterly winds. Usually, it is unpleasant but not dangerous, and lasts only two or three days. Especially in the Fall or Spring,  these periods are usually followed by a short rainy period. 

Lately, Israel has been experiencing an unusually long period of very strong, easterly winds, just at the time when the rains should be starting, after six months or more of no rainfall. The vegetation is very dry and vulnerable. A stray spark can easily set in motion a disastrous sequence of events, such as occurred with the Carmel fire of 2010, when 44 people were killed.

Israel seems to be under attack. Many fires are burning, many neighborhoods have been evacuated throughout northern and central Israel. Thus far, there have been many light injuries, but no fatalities. Many homes have been destroyed. Israel has requested nearby allies (Greece, Cyprus, Italy, and Turkey, among others) to send firefighting planes to assist in the effort to extinguish the fires.

Click here to see several articles on the Arutz Sheva news site detailing the situation of fires in several different locations as of the time of this writing.

It is sad, but important to note that the vast majority of areas that are experiencing or have experienced fires over the past three days have been Jewish areas - almost without exception. Arson is suspected at least in some of the most serious cases, investigations are being carried out and some arrests have already been made. As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, arson, or incitement to arson, is nothing but terror.

Sally Zahav

Source: original material

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israelis rally around communities affected by raging fires - Yori Yalon, Nitzi Yakov, Noam Dvir and Israel Hayom Staff

by Yori Yalon, Nitzi Yakov, Noam Dvir and Israel Hayom Staff

Village of Abu Ghosh hosts 150 people from neighboring Nataf • Youth movements in country's north collect donations, host activities to ease tensions among children • Kfar Etzion Field School offers accommodation to anyone evacuated because of the fires.

Teenage volunteers assist with firefighting efforts in Zikhron Yaakov
Photo credit: AP

Yori Yalon, Nitzi Yakov, Noam Dvir and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

8 arrested for arsons in northern Israel - Uzi Baruch

by Uzi Baruch

Police nab 8 suspects believed to be responsible for setting fires in northern Israel.

Police arrested eight individuals believed to be responsible for some of the hundreds of fires sparked across the country over the past three days.

The eight are suspected of operating across northern Israel, setting multiple fires in the midst of a long dry spell, that, along with strong winds, have strengthened blazes around the country.

Prior to the series of fires which broke out in Haifa on Thursday – and are also believed to be the result of Arab arson – buildings across the Galilee and in Atlit and Zichron Yaakov were damaged.

In Haifa, more than 85,000 residents have fled their homes, with eight neighborhoods fully evacuated.
Of some 200 fires recorded over the past three days, Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan said it was estimated that roughly one half were deliberately set by Arab arsonists.

Police Chief Roni Alsheich announced during a press briefing Thursday afternoon that a number of arrests had already been made in connection with the wave of arsons across the country.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared the arsons acts of terrorism, and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

"Every fire caused by arson, or incitement to commit arson, is terrorism for all intents and purposes, and we will bring them to justice.”

Uzi Baruch


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Did Identity Politics Doom the Dems? - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The survival of the Democrats rests on immigration.

The specter of identity politics is haunting the left. It shows up at teary-eyed election parties in Berkeley, debates over craft beers in Williamsburg and the editorial pages of the big opinion shaper papers.

No less an icon of the left than Bernie Sanders has been grumbling that his movement needs to reconnect with working people again. He even tentatively denounced identity politics. “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’” Bernie bears a grudge. That’s obvious. But the old Socialist has a history of spouting the old Socialist working class denunciations of immigration.

Bernie is really arguing that the Democrats ought to emphasize class more and race less. Similar left-wing squeaks have popped up in a handful of editorials. But they aren’t likely to travel very far.

The Democrats are losing the Rust Belt, just like they lost the South, because they have become an urban political machine. Identity politics is just urban organizing with a lot of left-wing lipstick on top. Bernie’s state is 95% white. Even Burlington hovers somewhere in the high eighties. Bernie can only organize around class because a coalition of minorities wouldn’t get him to the nearest post office.

Identity politics beat Bernie in the Democratic primaries. But it might have cost Hillary the election. And now Trump is in a position to end the Democrats by cutting their immigration lifeline. The Dems have burned their bridges with the working class by gambling everything that they have on demographic change. If the change doesn’t materialize, then they are trapped at the dead end of a short alley.

That’s the big problem the Democrats face. Identity politics with its hysterical outbursts of rage and specialized vocabulary of victimhood (privilege, victim-blaming, microaggressions) is toxic nationally, but dominates the academic and big city political populations that are its base. The Obama coalitions of millennial college leftists and disaffected minorities are passion voters whose turnout is unreliable and when they don’t turn out, then the aspirations of the Dems become sand castles with a storm coming in.

Democrats went into this election convinced that the tide of demographic change was on their side. That tide depends heavily on immigration. If Trump secures the border, deports illegal aliens and revamps immigration to serve national interests, then the Democrats lose their demographic future.

And they realize it. They’ve gambled their political future on immigration. If immigration can’t deliver the demographic changes that the left touted, then they will become a minority party.

The left used to oppose immigration. The Socialist Party inveighed against, "the immigration of strikebreakers and contract laborers, and the mass importation of workers from foreign countries brought about by the employing classes for the purpose of weakening the organization of American labor, and lowering the standard of life of American workers.”

But the left shifted away from working class regions and toward urban areas. Its political organizing was no longer based on experiences rallying coal miners or fruit pickers, but bullying college students. Identity politics was ideal for big campuses where identity coalitions were even more powerful than in big cities. Voter turnout is laughably light. Those who do vote are more likely to carry political agendas.

Under Obama, campus politics went national. The Dems made the final shift from class to culture war. When Hillary first ran for the White House, she could juggle the traditional three races appeal. This time around she had to incoherently appeal to a bewildering range of angry identity groups.

The Obama coalition ran on passion politics. The minority half of the coalition needed someone representative. The campus half wanted hip inspiration. Hillary Clinton couldn’t deliver either one.

But the lessons of her defeat aren’t lost on Democrats aspiring to higher office. Paying lip service to diversity is no longer enough. The only way to ensure minority turnout in national elections might be to have a minority politician at the top of the ticket. The future would belong to the Obama clones.

Bernie certainly understands the implications of that even if some Democrats don’t. He could very well be the last white male with a serious shot of entering the White House as a Democrat. And he’s strongly hinting that he would like to run again in 2020. That’s why he has to question identity politics.

Class over race means Bernie could still become the Dem nominee. Race over class could lock him out.

That’s also why Obama has reassured Dems that identity politics will eventually pay off, even if there might be the occasional setback along the way. Nevertheless the country will still be transformed. Bernie however has questioned whether a permanent Democratic majority would even be possible.

Without the prospect of a permanent majority through mass migration on the horizon, the Democrats have to consider abandoning identity politics and returning to tried and true class warfare.

But a retreat from identity politics may not even be possible.

Intersectionality is worlds away from the old racial pandering. The culture of identity outrage dominates left-wing messaging. The opposition to Trump leans heavily on victim politics rather than class. We are incessantly lectured on all the Muslim and illegal alien kiddies who go to bed crying because of him. This performance of passive aggressive victimhood has only disgusted even more of the country.

Identity politics is tethered to outrage and therefore is inherently unstable and alienating. It’s based on a subjective experience that is deemed inaccessible to those with more “privilege” and yet it is an experience whose emotional outcomes are meant to govern our lives. It’s a selfishly anti-intellectual creed that cannot be reasoned with because it derives from the recesses of personal emotion.

It’s not an intellectual exercise, but a performance of personal suffering and outrage. And there’s no way around it without jettisoning the crust of political correctness that makes victimhood sacred. Those who suffer the most are morally superior. Their whims and wishes must dominate the Dem agenda.

An older left could have made a compelling case for the victimhood of the unemployed coal miner, but no such creature exists in campus politics where there are 63 gender identities, but no white working class. The left has defined victimhood as the alienation experienced by those who are different. There is no room for oppressed majorities, only minorities. An ideology that once defined itself by labor is far more interested in charting the erratic emotions of unstable college kids than in the real problems of working people. It can relate to the former, but not the latter.

Democrats have to choose between identity politics and the working class. Abandoning identity politics would be a painful process while abandoning the working class has proven to be painless and disastrous. But identity politics without mass migration and social transformation is unworkable. Immigration determines the future of the Democrats. This election is forcing Democrats to make a choice.

Obama’s identity politics preached that Republicans had to embrace identity politics or lose their ability to win national elections. But if the Democrats can’t sustain the rate of demographic change that they need, their lost grip on the working class white vote may lock them out of the White House.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Giving Thanks for the End of the Pro-Crime Presidency - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Obama's Thanksgiving gift to America: putting an unprecedented number of criminals back on the streets.

This Thanksgiving, Americans can give thanks for the termination of one of the most pro-criminal administrations in American history, though the damage done to the criminal justice system may far outlast outgoing President Barack Obama's tenure in office. 

To date, President Obama has now freed more than a thousand prisoners as part of his crusade against a criminal justice system he considers to be racist.

With fewer than 60 days remaining in his second and final term of office, the most felon-friendly president in American history just “reduced the sentences of 79 people in prison for non-violent drug crimes,” bringing his total to 1,023 commutations of prison sentences, Quartz reports.

“Unlike pardons, commutations don’t officially constitute forgiveness of a crime. They reduce a prisoner’s sentence but don’t necessarily let them go free immediately. The details of the most recent 79 commutations weren’t immediately clear.”

The 1,023 figure does not include the 6,112 allegedly non-violent drug offenders freed a year ago under retroactively applied federal sentencing guidelines.

The president’s pardon power is unreviewable in any court in the land and cannot be modified by Congress. When it comes to federal offenses, the president is free to pardon or commute the sentence of anybody for anything anywhere in America.

To Obama the fact that African-Americans are the most incarcerated group in the U.S. is proof not that they commit a lot of crimes but that they are innocent victims of racist, systemic discrimination in a country where race relations haven't improved much since Jim Crow.

"One of the things that I've consistently said as president is that I'm the president of all people," Obama said during last year’s prison break. "I am very proud that my presidency can help to galvanize and mobilize America on behalf of issues of racial disparity and racial injustice."

Most conservatives don’t buy into Obama’s race-related nonsense.

And Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), now President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for the post of attorney general, warned last year that "when we release large numbers of criminals early, we know that a substantial number of those individuals will commit murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, and other violent crimes that would have been prevented had they remained in prison."

While federal offenders give thanks today on this national holiday for having a criminal-loving president in the Oval Office, left-wing criminal justice critics are complaining Obama has been moving far too slowly.

“Clemency is the one administrative action President Obama can take that will not be overturned by an incoming Trump administration,” according to Jessica Jackson Sloan, director of Cut 50, a project of admitted communist Van Jones’s Dream Corps Unlimited group.

“We are grateful to the President for the 79 clemencies that were granted today – a handful of families were granted hope as the holidays approach. But there is much, much more the President can and must do.”

But Obama has in fact been doing much, much more.

The president has been attempting to fundamentally redefine and mainstream criminal behavior by fast-tracking criminals' federal employment applications, weakening criminal law penalties, and trafficking in get-out-of-jail-free cards for thousands of imprisoned federal drug offenders.

Obama has been releasing prisoners because he believes it's not fair to keep them locked up for their crimes. He has been defending lawless so-called sanctuary cities, and banning the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) criminal record box on federal job applications. Banning the box amounts to a kind of executive clemency that initially nullifies criminal convictions of ex-cons seeking federal employment and effectively penalizes law-abiding citizens for their good behavior, making them the equals of criminals. In other words, the policy treats criminals the same as non-criminals, and most reasonable people would say that’s not fair.

This is the first and only president to go on a tour of prisons. He has been freeing dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo Bay at a frightening clip. He rewarded illegal aliens for breaking the law and he embraced violent, anti-American Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements.

Obama has been defining deviancy down by attempting to de-stigmatize criminality. The Left views criminals -- especially minorities -- as victims of society, oppressed for mere nonconformism. Because it needs their votes, the Left presses for the restoration of felons' voting rights.

With the 79 new commutations, Obama pretended he was acting out of a desire for fairness.
“The power to grant pardons and commutations … embodies the basic belief in our democracy that people deserve a second chance after having made a mistake in their lives that led to a conviction under our laws.”

But the belief “that people deserve a second chance” isn’t what motivated Obama to act, according to the White House website. It’s so-called social justice, pure and simple. 

A Nov. 22 post on the website brags the president “granted 70 pardons” and “has commuted the sentences of more individuals in one year than in any other single year in our nation’s history.”

“The President has now commuted the sentences of 1,023 men and women incarcerated under outdated and unduly harsh sentencing laws, including 342 individuals who were serving life sentences,” the site states.

According to Department of Justice statistics, Obama has indeed granted more commutations than all other presidents since the Second World War combined.

George W. Bush issued 11 commutations. Before that Bill Clinton granted 61, preceded by George H.W. Bush (3), Ronald Reagan (13), Jimmy Carter (29), Gerald Ford (22), Richard Nixon (60), Lyndon Johnson (226), John F. Kennedy (100), Dwight D. Eisenhower (47), and Harry Truman (118).

All these recent commutations are needed, according to the White House, because the system is bad – and so is America.
Our nation faces a cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration that traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. Since taking office, President Obama has fought for a smarter and more equitable criminal justice system. He has been committed to using all the tools at his disposal to remedy the unfairness at the heart of the system—including the presidential power to grant clemency.
Obama recognizes that “clemency alone cannot fix decades of overly punitive sentencing policies, or make our criminal justice system more fair and more just on the whole.”

And more presidential pardons are coming before Obama quits the White House at 12 Noon on Jan. 20.

Omar Abdel-Rahman would be a logical enough choice for President Obama to pardon on the way out. Obama has, after all, shown a willingness to release the worst of the worst among Muslim terrorists. He freed five Islamist generals in exchange for deserter and Taliban collaborator U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. 

Releasing the 78-year-old Blind Sheikh, whose list of U.S. targets overlapped with the targets Obama pal Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground Organization bombed or plotted to bomb in the 1970s, would delight the president's Islamist allies.

The Arabic language newspaper al-Arabiya previously reported previously that the Obama administration offered to send Abdel-Rahman to Egypt as part a prisoner swap. Abdel-Rahman was convicted of “seditious conspiracy” in 1995 in connection with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

And President-elect Trump’s less-than-definitive statement that his incoming administration will not go after Clinton for her years of corruption in office and brazen criminal wrongdoing cannot be a comfort to Clinton.

Clinton is no dummy. She knows if she doesn't secure a pardon for her many crimes in the next few weeks while her party controls the White House she'll never get one.

Obama isn’t slow on the uptake either. He doesn't want investigators doing a deep dive into the email scandal because he is implicated in it.

The Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice, which advises the president, is going to be swamped with work in coming weeks.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

ADL ignores Ellison anti-Semitism, attacks pro-Israel Bannon - Morton A. Klein

by Morton A. Klein

Has ADL decided to go partisan - backing an overtly anti-Semitic Democrat and attacking a pro-Israel Trump appointee?

It seems that with each passing day, more information comes to light about the alarming anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and extremist radical Islamist involvements and positions of Muslim U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison a/k/a Keith X. Ellison a/k/a Keith Hakim a/k/a Keith Ellison Muhammed (D-Minn.) - which should disqualify Ellison from heading the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for which he is the Senator Schumer-supported leading contender.  Ethical issues have also come to the fore.

On Monday, we learned that the House of Representatives Ethics Committee had opened an investigation into Rep. Ellison (D., Minn.) after he failed to disclose that the Muslim American Society - a group that Muslim Brotherhood members founded to be the “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.” - paid $13,350 for Ellison to visit Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 2008.  (See Muslim Brotherhood-Tied Group Paid for Keith Ellison to Visit Mecca in 2008: Group was founded as 'overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.',” by Brent Scher, Washington Free Beacon, Nov. 21, 2016.)   The Muslim Brotherhood is the “parent” organization of Hamas, al Qaeda and other terrorist entities.  Egypt, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, and Kuwait have all designated the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization. 

Last week, my organization, the ZOA, published a release, urging that Ellison should not be appointed to head the DNC.  Per the extensive sources cited in ZOA’s release, Ellison’s dangerous positions and involvements, have included the following:  
  • During a DemocracyNow! TV  interview, Ellison suggested that the Israeli “occupation” was to blame for a “humanitarian crisis” and lack of sewage processing in Gaza – while ignoring that Israel withdrew from every inch of Gaza, and that Hamas diverts the electricity needed to operate Gaza’s sewage treatment plant to Hamas’s terrorist tunnels and operations.

  • Also in 2016, Ellison tweeted a sign falsely accusing Israel of expropriation and “apartheid.”  And just two months ago, Ellison defended the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) on the House floor.  ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, involved in funneling money to Hamas.
  • In 2015, Ellison co-authored and spearheaded a letter (and obtained signatures on the letter of 23 Democratic Members of Congress) demanding that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress about the Iran deal be delayed until after the sanctions deadline – when the visit would have been useless.  
  • In 2014, Ellison was one of only 8 Congresspersons who voted against the bi-partisan bill to provide $225 million to Israel’s “Iron dome” missile system.  Ellison’s position would have left innocent Israeli civilians at the mercy of Hamas rockets.  
  • In 2012, Ellison traveled from Minnesota to raise funds and speak at mosques in New Jersey, urging Arab-American residents of New Jersey to defeat pro-Israel Democratic Jewish Congressman Steve Rothman. 
  • In 2010, Ellison spearheaded and convinced 53 other Democratic Congresspersons to sign his infamous “Gaza 54” letter to President Obama, which falsely accused Israel of humiliating and wreaking “collective punishment” on Gaza residents and demanded that President Obama should pressure Israel to lift the Gaza blockade – thereby enabling Hamas to obtain more weapons to kill and terrorize innocent Israeli civilians. 
  • The leading anti-Israel, anti-Semitic boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) group in the U.S. still uses the anti-Israel smears in Ellison’s “Gaza 54” letter to promote BDS. 
  • In a 2010 DemocracyNow! Interview, Ellison also argued that the U.S. should not kill a leading terrorist located in Yemen, who was responsible for numerous deaths of Americans and was continuing to foment some of the worst terror attacks on Americans, because the terrorist would consider his own death to be a “reward.” 
  • Ellison also received substantial campaign contributions from groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, spoke at Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) dinners, and defended CAIR on the House floor.   Materials handed out at CAIR’s 2008 dinner (where Ellison spoke) called America a terrorist organization, and called for the destruction of Israel and the United States.  CAIR is another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, involved in funneling money to Hamas.
  • In 2007, Ellison analogized President Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror after 9/11 to Hitler’s rise to power and activities after the Reichstag fire.  
  • From approximately 1989 until at least 1998, Ellison was an active leader in Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic Nation of Islam.  Ellison raised funds and led anti-police chants to support cop-killers; co-sponsored a vicious anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), entitled “Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?” while ignoring Jewish law students’ pleas to Ellison not to sponsor the speech; and spoke at a public hearing on behalf of the Nation of Islam in support of a woman alleged to have said “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.“  
Back in 2007, the ADL criticized Ellison’s analogy of President Bush to Hitler.   

However, the ADL is utterly silent about Ellison now – when the leadership and direction of the Democratic party is at risk of falling into the hands of someone with a longstanding record of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel activities.  Instead of calling out the real danger from Ellison, the ADL has been busy falsely accusing President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon of anti-Semitism.

ADL’s failure to condemn Ellison’s overwhelming record of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activities displays rank partisanship, and is an abdication of the ADL’s stated mission of combatting anti-Semitism.

The ZOA thus again urges the ADL to join us in speaking out against appointing Ellison to the extraordinarily powerful position of head of the DNC.   

Morton A. Klein is the National President of the Zionist Organization of America.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Final Statement of Geert Wilders at his Trial - Geert Wilders

by Geert Wilders

I must speak. Not just for myself, but for the Netherlands, our country. That I need to use the only freedom that I still have to protect our country. Against Islam and against terrorism.

Mr. President, Members of the Court,

When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am. Because I never give up. And I have a message for you and the Netherlands.

For centuries, the Netherlands are a symbol of freedom.

When one says Netherlands, one says freedom. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition. And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.

We, Dutch, say whatever is close to our hearts. And that is precisely what makes our country great. Freedom of speech is our pride.

And that, precisely that, is at stake here, today.

I refuse to believe that we are simply giving this freedom up. Because we are Dutch. That is why we never mince our words. And I, too, will never do that. And I am proud of that. No-one will be able to silence me.

Moreover, members of the court, for me personally, freedom of speech is the only freedom I still have. Every day, I am reminded of that. This morning, for example. I woke up in a safe-house. I got into an armored car and was driven in a convoy to this high security courtroom at Schiphol. The bodyguards, the blue flashing lights, the sirens. Every day again. It is hell. But I am also intensely grateful for it.

Because they protect me, they literally keep me alive, they guarantee the last bit of freedom left to me: my freedom of speech. The freedom to go somewhere and speak about my ideals, my ideas to make the Netherlands -- our country -- stronger and safer. After twelve years without freedom, after having lived for safety reasons, together with my wife, in barracks, prisons and safe-houses, I know what lack of freedom means.

I sincerely hope that this will never happen to you, members of the court. That, unlike me, you will never have to be protected because Islamic terror organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS, and who knows how many individual Muslims, want to murder you. That you will no longer be allowed to empty your own mailbox, need to carry a bulletproof vest at meetings, and that there are police officers guarding the door whenever you use the bathroom. I hope you will be spared this.

However, if you would have experienced it -- no matter how much you disagree with my views -- you might perhaps understand that I cannot remain silent. That I should not remain silent. That I must speak. Not just for myself, but for the Netherlands, our country. That I need to use the only freedom that I still have to protect our country. Against Islam and against terrorism. Against immigration from Islamic countries. Against the huge problem with Moroccans in the Netherlands. I cannot remain silent about it; I have to speak out. That is my duty, I have to address it, I must warn for it, I have to propose solutions for it.

I had to give up my freedom to do this and I will continue. Always. People who want to stop me will have to murder me first.

And so, I stand here before you. Alone. But I am not alone. My voice is the voice of many. In 2012, nearly 1 million Dutch have voted for me. And there will be many more on March 15th.

According to the latest poll, soon, we are going to have two million voters. Members of the court, you know these people. You meet them every day. As many as one in five Dutch citizens would vote the Party for Freedom, today. Perhaps your own driver, your gardener, your doctor or your domestic aid, the girlfriend of a registrar, your physiotherapist, the nurse at the nursing home of your parents, or the baker in your neighborhood. They are ordinary people, ordinary Dutch. The people I am so proud of.

They have elected me to speak on their behalf. I am their spokesman. I am their representative. I say what they think. I speak on their behalf. And I do so determinedly and passionately. Every day again, including here, today.

So, do not forget that, when you judge me, you are not just passing judgment on a single man, but on millions of men and women in the Netherlands. You are judging millions of people. People who agree with me. People who will not understand a conviction. People who want their country back, who are sick and tired of not being listened to, who cherish freedom of expression.

Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of the Netherlands. And I tell you: if you convict me, you will convict half of the Netherlands. And many Dutch will lose their last bit of trust in the rule of law.

Geert Wilders in court, November 23, 2016. (Image source: NPO Nieuws video screenshot)

Of course, I should not have been subjected to this absurd trial. Because this is a political trial. It is a political trial because political issues have to be debated in Parliament and not here. It is a political trial because other politicians -- from mostly government parties -- who spoke about Moroccans have not been prosecuted. It is a political trial because the court is being abused to settle a political score with an opposition leader whom one cannot defeat in Parliament.

This trial here, Mr. President, it stinks. It would be appropriate in Turkey or Iran, where they also drag the opposition to court. It is a charade, an embarrassment for the Netherlands, a mockery of our rule of law.

And it is also an unfair trial because, earlier, one of you -- Mrs. van Rens -- commented negatively on the policy of my party and the successful challenge in the previous Wilders trial. Now, she is going to judge me.

What have I actually done to deserve this travesty? I have spoken about fewer Moroccans at a market, and I have asked questions of PVV members during a campaign event. And I did so, members of the court, because we have a huge problem with Moroccans in this country. And almost no-one dares to speak about it or take tough measures. My party alone has been speaking about this problem for years.

Just look at these past weeks: Moroccan fortune-seekers stealing and robbing in Groningen, abusing our asylum system, and Moroccan youths terrorizing entire neighborhoods in Maassluis, Ede and Almere. I can give tens of thousands of other examples -- almost everyone in the Netherlands knows them or has personally experienced nuisance from criminal Moroccans. If you do not know them, you are living in an ivory tower.

I tell you: If we can no longer honestly address problems in the Netherlands, if we are no longer allowed to use the word "alien," if we, Dutch, are suddenly racists because we want Black Pete to remain black, if we only go unpunished if we want more Moroccans or else are dragged before a criminal court, if we sell out our hard-won freedom of expression, if we use the courts to silence an opposition politician, who threatens to become Prime Minister, then this beautiful country will be doomed. That is unacceptable, because we are Dutch and this is our country.

And again, what on earth have I done wrong? How can the fact be justified that I have to stand here as a suspect, as if I robbed a bank or committed murder?

I only spoke about Moroccans at a market and asked a question at an election-night meeting. And anyone who has the slightest understanding of politics, knows that the election-night meetings of every party consist of political speeches full of slogans, one-liners and making maximum use of the rules of rhetoric. That is our job. That is the way it works in politics.

Election nights are election nights, with rhetoric and political speeches; not university lectures, in which every paragraph is scrutinized for 15 minutes from six points of view. It is simply crazy that the Public Prosecutor now uses this against me, as if one would blame a football player for scoring a hattrick.

Indeed, I said at the market, in the beautiful Hague district of Loosduinen: "if possible fewer Moroccans." Mark that I did so a few minutes after a Moroccan lady came to me and told me she was going to vote PVV because she was sick and tired of the nuisance caused by Moroccan youths.

And on election night, I began by asking the PVV audience "Do you want more or less EU," and I also did not explain in detail why the answer might be less. Namely, because we need to regain our sovereignty and reassert control over our own money, our own laws and our own borders. I did not do that.

Then, I asked the public "Do you want more or less Labour Party." And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be less. Namely, because they are the biggest cultural relativists, willfully blind and Islam-hugging cowards in Parliament. I did not say that.

And then I asked, "Do you want more or fewer Moroccans," and again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because people with Moroccan nationality are overrepresented in the Netherlands in crime, benefit dependency and terror. And that we want to achieve this by expelling criminals with Moroccan nationality after denaturalizing them of their Dutch nationality, by a stricter immigration policy and an active voluntary repatriation policy. Proposals that we have made in our election manifesto from the day I founded the Party for Freedom.

I explained this in several interviews on national television, both between the statement at the market and election night, as well as on election night a few moments after I had asked the said questions. It is extremely malicious and false of the Public Prosecutor to want to disregard that context.

Disgusting -- I have no other words for it -- are the actions of other politicians, including the man who for a few months may still call himself Prime Minister. Their, and especially his, actions after the said election night constituted real persecution, a witch hunt. The government created an atmosphere in which it had to come to trial.

Prime Minister Rutte even told small children during the youth news that I wanted to expel them, and then reassured them that this would not happen. As if I had said anything of that kind. It is almost impossible to behave viler and falser.

But, also, the then Minister of Security and Justice -- who, it should be noted, is the political boss of the Public Prosecutor -- called my words disgusting and even demanded that I take them back. A demand of the Minister of Justice -- you do not have to be named Einstein to predict what will happen next, what the Public Prosecutor will do, if you do not comply to the demand of the Minister of Justice.

The Interior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, too, both from the Labour Party, expressed themselves similarly. In short, the government left the Public Prosecutor no option than to prosecute me. Hence, in this trial, the Officers of Justice are not representatives of an independent Public Prosecutor, but accomplices of this government.

Mr. President, the elite also facilitated the complaints against me. With pre-printed declaration forms, which were brought to the mosque by the police. In which, it has to be noted, the police sometimes said that they, too, were of the opinion that my statements were inadmissible.

And a sample taken by us showed that some complaints were the result of pure deception, intimidation and influence. People thought they were going to vote; they not even know my name, did not realize what they were signing or declared that they did not feel to be discriminated against by me at all.

Someone said that, at the As Soenah mosque, after Friday prayers alone, 1,200 complaints were lodged because it was thought to be an election. There were parades, led by mayors and aldermen, like in Nijmegen, where CDA mayor Bruls was finally able to show off his deep-seated hatred of the PVV. The police had extra opening hours, offered coffee and tea, there were dancing and singing Moroccans accompanied by a real oompah band in front of a police station. They turned it into a big party.

But meanwhile, two representative polls, one commissioned by the PVV, the other commissioned by De Volkskrant, showed that, apart from the government and media elite, 43% of the Dutch people, around 7 million people, agree with me. Want fewer Moroccans. You will be very busy if the Public Prosecutor is going to prosecute all these 7 million people.

People will never understand that other politicians -- especially from government parties -- and civil servants who have spoken about Moroccans, Turks and even PVV members, are being left alone and not prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor.

Like Labour leader Samsom, who said that Moroccan youths have a monopoly on ethnic nuisance.
Or Labour chairman Spekman, who said Moroccans should be humiliated.

Or Labour alderman Oudkerk, who spoke about f*cking Moroccans.

Or Prime Minister Rutte, who said that Turks should get lost.

And what about police chief Joop van Riessen, who said about me on television -- I quote literally: "Basically one would feel inclined to say: let's kill him, just get rid of him now and he will never surface again"?

And in reference to PVV voters, van Riessen declared: "Those people must be deported, they no longer belong here." End of quote. The police chief said that killing Wilders was a normal reaction. That is hatred, Mr. President, pure hatred -- and not by us, but against us. And the Public Prosecutor did not prosecute Mr. Van Riessen.

But the Public Prosecutor does prosecute me. And demands a conviction based on nonsensical arguments about race and concepts that are not even in the law. It accuses and suspects me of insulting a group and inciting hatred and discrimination on grounds of race. How much crazier can it become? Race. What race?

I spoke and asked a question about Moroccans. Moroccans are not a race. Who makes this up? No-one at home understands that Moroccans have suddenly become a race. This is utter nonsense. Not a single nationality is a race. Belgians are no race, Americans are no race. Stop this nonsense, I say to the Public Prosecutor. I am not a racist and neither are my voters. How do you dare suggest that? Wrongly slandering millions of people as racists.

43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans, as I already said. They are no racists. Stop insulting these people. Every day, they experience the huge problem with Moroccans in our country. They have a right to a politician who is not afraid to mention the problem with Moroccans. But neither they nor I care whether someone is black, yellow, red, green or violet.

I tell you: If you convict someone for racism while he has nothing against races, then you undermine the rule of law, then it is bankrupt. No-one in this country will understand that.

And now the Public Prosecutor also uses the vague concept of "intolerance." Yet another stupidity. The subjective word intolerance, however, is not even mentioned in the law. And what for heaven's sake is intolerance? Are you going to decide that, members of the court?

It is not up to you to decide. Nor up to the Supreme Court or even the European Court. The law itself must determine what is punishable. We, representatives, are elected by the people to determine clearly and visibly in the law for everyone what is punishable and what is not.

That is not up to the court. You should not do that, and certainly not on the basis of such subjective concepts, which are understood differently by everyone and can easily be abused by the elite to ban unwelcome opinions of the opposition. Do not start this, I tell you.

Mr. President, Members of the Court,

Our ancestors fought for freedom and democracy. They suffered, many gave their lives. We owe our freedoms and the rule of law to these heroes. But the most important freedom, the cornerstone of our democracy, is freedom of speech. The freedom to think what you want and to say what you think.

If we lose that freedom, we lose everything. Then, the Netherlands cease to exist; then the efforts of all those who suffered and fought for us are useless. From the freedom fighters for our independence in the Golden Age to the resistance heroes in World War II. I ask you: Stand in their tradition. Stand for freedom of expression.

By asking for a conviction, the Public Prosecutor, as an accomplice of the established order, as a puppet of the government, asks to silence an opposition politician. And, hence, silence millions of Dutch. I tell you: The problems with Moroccans will not be solved this way, but will only increase.

For people will sooner be silent and say less because they are afraid of being called racist, because they are afraid of being sentenced. If I am convicted, then everyone who says anything about Moroccans will fear to be called a racist.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, I conclude.

A worldwide movement is emerging that puts an end to the politically correct doctrines of the elites and the media that are subordinate to them.

That has been proven by Brexit.

That has been proven by the US elections.

That is about to be proven in Austria and Italy.

That will be proven next year in France, Germany, and The Netherlands.

The course of things is about to take a different turn. Citizens no longer tolerate it.

And I tell you, the battle of the elite against the people will be won by the people. Here, too, you will not be able to stop this, but rather accelerate it. We will win, the Dutch people will win, and it will be remembered well who was on the right side of history.

Common sense will prevail over politically correct arrogance. Because everywhere in the West, we are witnessing the same phenomenon.

The voice of freedom cannot be imprisoned; it rings like a bell. Everywhere, ever more people are saying what they think. They do not want to lose their land, they do not want to lose their freedom.

They demand politicians who take them seriously, who listen to them, who speak on their behalf. It is a genuine democratic revolt. The wind of change and renewal blows everywhere. Including here, in the Netherlands.

As I said:

I am standing here on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens.

I do not speak just on behalf of myself.

My voice is the voice of many.

And, so, I ask you, not only on behalf of myself, but in the name of all those Dutch citizens:

Acquit me! Acquit us!

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Second Letter Netanyahu did NOT write to Jean-Claude Juncker - Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld 

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

Perhaps some EU members, for instance Sweden – which has recognized the non-existing Palestinian State -- will be happy also to recognize Muslim mini-states in Germany.

Arutz Sheva Ed. Note: Jean-Claude Juncker is European politician from Luxembourg who has been President of the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, since 2014.

Dear Mr. Juncker,

While the European Union is in deep crisis, it has once again found it necessary to condemn Israel for approving the building of a few houses in the disputed territories. This censure concerns the construction of 98 homes on government-owned land in Shilo.[2] The EU’s behavior in this instance reminds me of an article by scholar Rivkah Fishman-Duker about Byzantium in the seventh century. She wrote that while Islam was conquering many Christian territories, the Byzantine leaders were instead obsessed with worries about the rather insignificant Jews.[3]

While surplus staff of the EU keeps giving negative attention to our housing plans, the Union’s so-called “experts” have ignored the Greek economic crisis for many years. These problems therefore keep festering until today. Meanwhile, French presidential candidate Alain Juppé says about his own country: “If 24% of young people under 25 years are unemployed, a country is not doing well.”[4] 

Some of my junior staff members read European newspapers. From their summaries, the lack of unity in the EU becomes clear, as well as several other major problems. Economics Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz believes that Italy will have to abandon the Euro in the near future. Prominent German economist Hans Werner Sinn agrees and says that the Euro is a great failure: “From a peace project it has become a divisive element.”[5] They are not alone. Now the same is even said by Otmar Issing, the first chief economist of the European Central Bank. He played an important role in the creation of the monetary union.[6]

It is not only the Euro that has come under fire recently. Jens Spahn, the Christian Democrat deputy finance minister of Germany stated that, “We are, without any doubt, within the worst times ever for the European Union.”[7] The citizens of several member countries are dissatisfied with EU policies. One example is the Czech Republic. Its president Milos Zeman favors his country remaining a member of the EU. Yet he wants a national referendum regarding staying in the EU and in NATO.[8] Polls show that in 2015, 62% of Czechs would have voted to leave the EU.[9]

One of the biggest issues dividing the EU, and especially its populace, is the refugee crisis. The Austrian Foreign Minister, Sebastian Kurz, has criticized the decision of the German government to allow more refugees from Greece and Italy to immigrate into Germany. He said that instead, the external borders of the EU should be better guarded.[10] 

After the huge influx of refugees, the EU only now has made a plan to control its outer borders.[11] One will have to wait to see how effective it is.

In the meantime, the Pegida movement keeps feeding on the misjudged refugee policy.[12] Jean Asselborn, the foreign minister of your small country, uses Pegida for his own publicity. He says that parts of Germany’s mentality stirs up fear.[13] The German office for criminality (BKA) has made it known that of 8675 people suspected of being involved in organized crime, two thirds are not German nationals.[14]

Mr. Juncker, have you ever given your attention to the development of Muslim mini-states in Europe? The head of the German Police Union Rainer Went said that there is already one zone in Berlin where sharia is applied and a second one where traffic is regulated by Muslims.[15] Perhaps some EU members, for instance Sweden – which has recognized the non-existing Palestinian State -- will be happy also to recognize Muslim mini-states in Germany. Ultimately these little entities can perhaps join the EU and thus make Luxembourg a middle-sized member.

Your colleague, EU security commissioner Julian King, has warned that Europe must prepare for a fresh influx of ISIS jihadist returnees from Mosul as the Iraqi army moves in the town.[16]

There are also some other developments concerning Islam in Europe you might wish to take note off. French President François Hollande has said in a book of interviews he has given that his country has “a problem with Islam” and that there are too many illegal migrants arriving in France.” He is no longer covering up the truth by speaking about Islamism instead of Islam.[17] The Canard Enchainé journal has reported that after a variety of sabotage attempts, Air France is increasingly worried about more such incidents due to radicalization of some employees of itself and of suppliers.[18]

I suggest you distribute to all EU employees an article by the prominent scholar Bassam Tibi. He is originally from Damascus but has lived two-thirds of his life in Germany. Tibi has recently written that for a quarter of a century, until 2015, he has been promoting a bridge between European societies and Muslim immigrants. This was based on an Europeanization of Islam. He admits now: “I have lost. There will not be a Euro-Islam. I capitulate.” [19]

It is not my intention to write you long letters. I’ll ask a junior staffer to keep track of new problems in the EU. I intend to write to you again if your surplus employees repeat these condemnations. From my experience, during the time that elapses between our announcement of building a few houses in Judea or Samaria to your condemnation of it, much additional information about what is wrong with the EU accumulates.

There is one far more serious issue which I wish to raise with you. Less than a century ago, most European Jews were murdered by Europeans. European leaders seem to not have learned much from this. EU member states have let in huge numbers of immigrants from countries where the majority of the population is anti-Semitic. I think the time has come to stop the promotion of anti-Semitism by the EU through immigration. Israel will gladly help you develop vetting procedures for new immigrants.

I have to make one more non-diplomatic comment which has been on my mind for a long time. Have you ever thought hiring a psychologist to work out what is wrong with the mindset of the European Commission?


[1] For first letter see:
[19] file:///D:/Users/user/Downloads/Tibi-Warum-ich-kapituliere_Cicero-Artikel%20(3).pdf

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe and North America.He is board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.